KANTILAL MATHURDAS PARIKH Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SHIVRAJPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ for setting aside and quashing the election held in June 1962 of the first respondent Panchayat and also for setting aside the election to the posts of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the first respondent Panchayat.

(2.) Prior to January 3 1946 the entire village of Shivrajpur including what is known as Shivrajpur mines area was notified as one village within the meaning of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act IV of 1933 by a notification dated December 28 1945 and published in the Bombay Government Gazette issued on January 3 1946 The two areas were separated and declared as two distinct villages with separate Panchayats. we are concerned in this petition with the village called Shivrajpur Village Site as distinct from the village called Shivrajpur Mines Village. The term of the first respondent Panchayat expired on June 30 1962 and therefore arrangement for a fresh election had had to be made. Consequently on May 2 1962 the Mamlatdar issued a notification fixing the programme of the various stages of the election. Under that notification the date of filing nominations of candidates was June 2 1962 the date for the scrutiny of the nominations was June 3; the final date of withdrawal of nominations was June 9; the date for the preparation of the list of accepted nominations was June 11 and the announcement of the election by beat of drums was fixed on June 22. The notification fixed the date of voting and the counting of the votes and the declaration of the result on the 28th and the 29th of June 1962 respectively. The area of the first respondent Panchayat was divided into four wards. Wards 1 2 and 3 each was allotted three seats while two seats were alloted to ward No. 4. Two seats in the first ward were reserved for women. One seat each was reserved in the second and the third wards for scheduled tribes. One seat was reserved for scheduled castes in ward No. 4. Thus in all 5 seats were reserved for women and scheduled tribes and scheduled castes out of the 11 seats allocated to the first respondent Panchayat. In the first ward respondents 4 5 15 16 and two others filed their nominations for the reserved seats for women and respondents 6 17 and three others filed their nominations for the general seats in that ward. Respondents 7 8 18 19 and three others filed their nominations for the general seat in the second ward and respondent 9 and one another filed their nominations for the reserved seat in that ward. Respondents 10 11 20 21 and four others filed their nominations for the general seat in the third ward and respondent 12 and three others filed their nominations for the reserved seat in that ward. Respondents 13 22 and two others filed their nominations for the general seat in the fourth ward and respondent 14 and one another filed their nominations for the reserved seat in that ward. Respondents 9 12 and 13 were thereafter declared elected without contest in the reserved seats in ward Nos. 2 3 and 4. Respondents 4 to 8 10 11 12 and 13 were declared elected as a result of the election. Respondents 4 to 14 were thus declared elected as members of the first respondent Panchayat. It is this election which has been challenged by the petitioners in this application.

(3.) The petitioner raised a number of contentions in their petition but when the hearing started their learned advocate Mr. B. R. Shah chose to raise only four contentions. These four contentions were