SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(P&H) 31

2009 (5) RCR(Civ) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL & JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Karnail Singh and another- Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 10804 of 2008
Decided on: January 07, 2009
C.W.P. No. 10877 of 2008
Malkit Kaur- Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 11431 of 2008
Balkar Singh - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.10804 of 2008.
Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.10877 and 11431 of 2008.
Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondent
Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate, with Mr. T.S. Chadha, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWP No.11431 of 2008.

Conflicting interpretations of the law regarding the reservation of seats in Panchayat elections and the need for a Larger Bench to reconsider the matter.

Headnote:

Panchayat Elections - Reservation of Seats - Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 11 - Instructions dated 26.06.2003 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 11, Election Commission Act, 1994 - Section 37, Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 - Rule 9 - The judgment discusses the reservation of seats in Panchayat elections as per Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Instructions dated 26.06.2003. It highlights the conflicting interpretations of the law provided by different court judgments and the need for a Larger Bench to reconsider the matter.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners contested the Panchayat elections for reserved and general category seats. They challenged the election results and the Instructions dated 26.06.2003, claiming that candidates securing more votes in reserved categories should be declared elected in the general category.

Finding of the Court:

The court found conflicting interpretations of the law in different judgments and the need for a Larger Bench to reconsider the matter.

Issues: 1. Whether a candidate nominated for a reserved seat is entitled to be considered and elected on the general category seat if they secure more votes. 2. Whether a candidate forfeits the right to contest the general category seat if they file nomination papers for a reserved category. 3. The manner of declaring election results in a multi-member single constituency with reserved and unreserved seats.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the conflicting interpretations of the law provided by different court judgments and the need for a Larger Bench to reconsider the matter.

Final Decision: The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to reconsider the conflicting interpretations of the law.

JUDGMENT

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - This order shall deal with CWP Nos.10804 of 2008, 10877 of 2008 and 11431 of 2008.

2. In CWP No.10804 of 2008, the petitioners, who contested the election for the seat of Panch of Gram Panchayat of Village Moond Khera and secured 2 and 108 votes, respectively, and were declared defeated, have filed this petition for quashing the election result, whereby respondent No.6 (Amar Singh) and respondent No.7 (Hasan Ali) have been declared elected by the Presiding Officer, who had secured 49 and 21 votes, respectively, the same being unconstitutional, illegal and void; and further for quashing the Instructions dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure P3) issued by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, on the basis of which the above-said result was declared.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that Gram Panchayat of Village Moond Khera consists of five Members (known as Panches), who are to be elected by the electorals of the Gram Sabha. As per Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the `Panchayati Raj Act'), out of five seats of Panches, one was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, two for Women and the remaining two seats were to be filled up from General Category.

4. In the Panchayat elections held on 26.05.2008, nine candidates, including the petitioners contested against the aforesaid five seats of Panches. Two candidates nominated themselves for one seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and three candidates for two seats reserved for Women. The remaining four candidates contested the election as General Category candidates. In the said election, the aforesaid nine candidates secured votes as follows:-

1. Gurmail Kaur (Scheduled Caste) 163

2. Karnail Singh (Scheduled Caste) 02

3. Jasveer Kaur (Woman) 127

4. Sandeep Kaur (Woman) 125

5. Jarnail Kaur (Woman) 108

6. Amar Singh (General) 49

7. Hassan Ali (General) 21

8. Surjeet Singh (General) 04

9. Raheem Din (General) 01

5. The Returning Officer declared Gurmail Kaur elected against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, who secured 163 votes; Jasveer Kaur and Sandeep Kaur against two seats reserved for Women, who secured 127 and 125 votes, respectively; Amar Singh and Hassan Ali against two seats meant for General Category, who secured 49 and 21 votes, respectively. Petitioner No.2 Jarnail Kaur, who secured 108 votes and petitioner No.1 Karnail Singh, who secured two votes, were declared defeated.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 11 of the Panchayati Raj Act, seats are to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Caste (Woman), Women and for Backward Classes on the basis of their respective population in the village. As far as General Category is concerned, this Section does not provide for any reservation. The unreserved seats are to be filled up from the candidates belonging to General Category. Thus, when a seat is to be filled up from General Category, then a Scheduled Caste (Man or Woman), Backward Class (Man or Woman) and Woman are entitled to contest the said seat. If a Scheduled Caste candidate or a Scheduled Caste (Woman) or a Woman candidate secures more votes, he or she can be declared elected in General Category, irrespective of the fact whether he or she has nominated himself or herself for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste or Woman.

7. It is further contended that earlier the State of Punjab had issued instructions dated 22.04.2003 wherein it was explained that a Man or Woman belonging to Scheduled Caste Category can also contest the election of the General Category. A man belonging to Scheduled Caste or a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste can contest the election against the seats meant for General Category. It further provides that a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste can also contest the election reserved for man belonging to Scheduled Caste. The woman belonging to Gener












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top