ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M.C. DESAI, CJ., S. N. Dwivedi, J.
RAMESHWAR DAYAL - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER GHATAMPUR - Respondents
Civil Misc. Appln. 138 Of 1961
Decided On : 05/22/1961
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing of an order passed by opposite party No. 1 and for a direction to him to stay transfer of the charge of the office of pradhan to opposite party No. 2 and not to remove the petitioner from the office of Pradhan during the pendency of an election petition filed by him against the election of opposite party no. 2 as Pradhan. On 4-5-1961 we dismissed the petition and said that the reasons for dismissing it would be placed on record later. We now give the reasons for our order.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha in 1955. The next election for the office of Pradhan was held in December, 1960 opposite Party No. 2, and the petitioner contested the election, and opposite party No. 2 was declared elected. The petitioner filed an election petition in the Court of opposite party No. 1 challenging the election of opposite party No. 2 on various grounds, He also applied to opposite party No. 1 for not transferring the charge of the office from the petitioner to opposite party no. 2 pending disposal of the election petition, but the opposite party No. 1 dismissed his application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to stay transfer of charge. It is this order of opposite party No. 1 that the petitioner seeks through this petition to be quashed. When this Court admitted this petition it directed that until further orders the petitioner would not be removed from the office of Pradhan, with the consequences that the petitioner continued to hold the office of Pradhan till 4-5-1961.
( 3 ) A Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha is elected by its members and his term commences on the date of the constitution of the Gaon Panchayat, or on the date of his election, whichever is later, and expires with the term of the Gaon Panchayat; vide Section 11-B of the Panchayat Raj Act. The election of a person as Pradhan cannot be called in question except by an application presented to the proscribed authority on the ground that the election had not been a free election for a certain reason, or that it had Seen materially affected by the improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination, or by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act; vide Section 12-C. An application to question the election (which would be referred to as an election petition henceforth) may be presented by any candidate at the election or by an elector. Sub-section (4j of Section 12-C reads as follows:
"the authority to whom the application under Sub-section (1) is made shall, in the matter of - (i) hearing of the application and the procedure to be followed at such bearing, (ii) setting aside the election or declaring the election to be void or declaring the applicant to be duly elected or any other relief that may be granted to the petitioner, have such powers and authority as may be prescribed. "
The word "prescribed" means prescribed by the Act or rules made thereunder; see Section 2 (p ). A Pradhan may resign his office and thereupon his office shall become vacant; vide Section12-F. If a vacancy in the office of Pradhan arises by reason of his death, removal or resignation or avoidance of his election it has to be filled for the remainder of his term in the manner provided for a regular election; see Section 12-H. Though the term of a Pradhan expires with the term of the Gaon Panchayat he continues in office until his successor is elected; vide Section 12-K. The term of a Gaon Panchayat is five years as laid down in Section 12.
( 4 ) SECTION 110 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, and in particular to provide for the presentation and disposal of election petitions, taking of oath by Pradhan etc. Rules made by the State Government regarding election of Pradhan are contained in Chapter 1-E of the Panchayat Raj Rules. Rule 20-1 provides that when there is only one contesting candidate the Returning Officer shall forth
Mallappa Basappa v. Basavaraj Ayyappa
Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.