http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5104 of 2006

PETITIONER:

Som Lal

RESPONDENT:

Vijay Laxmi & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH:

A.K.MATHUR & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5104 of 2006

A.K.MATHUR,J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2006

passed by learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court

whereby the learned Single Judge held that the appellant- Som Lal was

holding the whole-time salaried office of a statutory body as he was

on the rolls of the Market Committee, Sirsa as Fireman on 29.6.2003

and he was disqualified from contesting the election as Sarpanch,

Gram Panchayat, Village Dhobra on 29.6.2003. Therefore, he has been

rightly held to be disqualified by the Election Tribunal.

Accordingly, the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the

Election Tribunal whereby the election of the appellant was set

aside. Aggrieved against this order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana the

present appeal was filed.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are

that the appellant contested the election of Sarpanch on 29.6.2003 of

Village Dhobara, Tehsil Pathankot, and the appellant was elected and

the opponent- Vijay Laxmi lost. Total votes polled -800; 411 votes

were polled in favour of the appellant- Som Lal; 376 votes were

polled in favour of Vijay Laxmi and 13 votes were cancelled. Hence,

the appellant was declared elected. The election of the appellant

was challenged by the respondent- Vijay Laxmi by filing an election

petition. The main ground taken by the respondent was that the

appellant was working as a Fireman in the Haryana State Agricultural

Marketing Board and he was posted at Sirsa. Therefore, he was

disqualified from contesting the election as he was holding the

office of profit. The plea of the appellant was that he was an

employee of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board but he had

left the job about 7-8 years prior to the conduct of the election.

Therefore, he did not suffer from any disqualification. The

respondent contended before the Election Tribunal that as per Section

208 (1)(g) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Punjab Act 9 of

1994) [hereinafter to be referred to as "the Punjab Act 9 of 1994"],a

person who is a whole-time salaried employee of any local authority,

Statutory Corporation or Board or a Co-operative Society registered

under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 or of the State

Government or the Central Government, is disqualified for being

chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat and since the

appellant was an employee of the Market Committee, therefore, he was

disqualified. As against this, it was contended by the appellant

that Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act,1994(

Punjab Act 19 of 1994)[hereinafter to be referred to as "the Punjab

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 10

Act No.19 of 1994] which came into force with effect from 19th

September, 1994 after the Punjab Act 9 of 1994 which came into force

with effect from 21.4.1994, which deals with disqualification, says

that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being

a member of a Panchayat or a Municipality if he holds an office of

profit under a Panchayat or a Municipality; or he holds an office of

profit under the Government of India or any State Government and not

for holding office of profit under local authority and being a member

of the Marketing Board. Therefore, as per Section 11 of the Act of 19

of 1994 an incumbent is not disqualified to contest the election. The

Election Tribunal after recording necessary evidence found that the

appellant was an employee of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing

Board, Sirsa and therefore, he was disqualified from contesting the

election for Sarpanch, Gram Pa