The court affirmed that disputes regarding disqualifications of members of Panchayats should adhere to prescribed statutory mechanisms rather than seeking writ petitions.

O R D E R Leave granted.

The dispute in this case relates to the disqualification of a Member, who later became Chairman, of a Kshetra Panchayat. The appellant before this Court was elected as a Member of the Kshetra Panchayat, Martinganj, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and the elections, disqualifications of Members etc. of the said Panchayat were governed by The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 [in short, “Adhiniyam, 1961”].

After the appellant was elected as a Member of the Kshetra Panchayat in July 2021, he stood for election for the post of ‘Block Pramukh’ of the Kshetra Panchayat, Martinganj, and was elected. While the appellant got 61 votes, his nearest rival candidate i.e.

SignaRture Neot sVerpifiedondent No. 1, got 23 votes in the election.

Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.08

15:02:11 IST Reason: Meanwhile, when the appellant was functioning as a Block Pramukh of the Kshetra Panchayat, reorganization of Panchayats took place and a new Nagar Panchayat of Martinganj was created, which included some of the areas which was earlier a part of Kshetra Panchayat, Martinganj. A part of that area which went to the Nagar Panchayat, Martinganj was the one from which the present appellant was elected as a Member of the Kshetra Panchayat. The undisputed fact remains that the Kshetra Panchayat, Martinganj was not dissolved. It continued to remain as a Kshetra Panchayat, but it lost some of its area to the newly created urban body.

Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court praying for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto seeking to dislodge the appellant from the office of Block Pramukh of the Nagar Panchayat on the ground that he has now become disqualified as his name does not figure in the Voters List of the Kshetra Panchayat, Martinganj. He would rely upon Section 13 (o) of the Adhiniyam, 1961, which reads as under :-

“13. Disqualification for membership of Kshettra Panchayat – A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Kshettra Panchayat, if he -

(a) to (n)…..XXXXXXXX (o) is not registered in the electoral rolls for any territorial constituency of the Kshettra Panchayat.”

Notices were issued and the present appellant who filed his counter affidavit before the High Court and raised a preliminary objection that a Writ of Quo Warranto does not lie in the present case inasmuch as the Constitution and the law provides Respondent No.1 with a statutory remedy to file a petition under Section 14 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1961, before the Judge. Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1961 is reproduced as under :-

“14. Disputes as to membership or disqualification – (1) If any dispute arises as to whether a person is a member of the Kshettra Panchayat under [clause (a)]1 of sub section (1) of Section 6, the dispute shall be referred in the manner prescribed to the State Government and the decision of the State Government shall be final and binding.

(2) If any question arises as to whether a person has been lawfully chosen a member of a Kshettra Panchayat or has ceased to remain eligible to be such member the question shall be referred in the manner prescribed to the Judge, whose decision shall be final and binding.

(3) If the Judge decides that the member was not lawfully chosen or has ceased to remain eligible to be a member of the Kshettra Panchayat such member shall cease to be a member of the Kshettra Panchayat from the date of such decision.”

Referring to Section 14 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1961, it was argued by the appellant that since a question has risen as to whether the appellant was rightfully chosen as a Member of the Kshetra Panchayat, it has to be decided by a Judge. Section 2 (24) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 defines the “Judge” as under :-

“ “Judge” means the District Judge and includes any other subordinate Civil Judicial Officer named or designated by the District Judge in this behalf”

He would also rely upon Article 243F of the Constitution