SURTI VALLABHBHAI LALLUBHAI Vs. ADDL MAMLATDAR CHORYASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is a resident of village Delavada situated in Surat district and who is a voter for the election to the Delavda Gram Panchayat has challenged the proposed re-election to the said Gram Panchayat which was to be held on 12-11-1984. The last general election took place in 1979. The petitioner was elected as a member on the reserved seat of scheduled caste. The term of the Gram Panchayat was to be over on 1-7-1984. However the same was extended upto 30-11-1984 by an order of the Collector Surat. In the mean-while fresh elections were sought to be held and that is why election notice was sought to be published. The election programme for the same was sought to be published in the village pursuant to the notice issued by the election officer and Additional Mamlatdar and ALT Choryasi Surat on 28-9-1984. A copy of the said notice is at Annexure A to the petition. The said notice reads that election to the Gram Panchayat was to be held on 12-11-1984. The aforesaid notice in proforma. A was sent to the Talati Delavda. That was to be published on the Chora of the village or the Panchayat office for a continuous period of three days i.e. 5th October to 7th October 1984 and that notice was also to be published by beat of drum in the village. The Talati of the Gram Panchayat was directed to give a report to that effect.

(2.) The petitioner submits that notice for election in form A as mentioned in the letter at Annexure A was never published at any place for information of the voters. The petitioner however came to know that dates for receiving nominations were fixed on 8th 9 and 10th October 1984. How-ever nobody was informed about the programme as the same was never published. The Sarpanch had never published the letter at Annexure A at any time. The voters were therefore deprived of the opportunity to submit their nominations. The petitioner wanted to contest at the said election as Sarpanch. However the petitioner could not submit his nomination in the absence of publication of the afore-said election programme. It is further the case of the petitioner that other voters were also deprived of their valuable rights of contesting at the election. The petitioner further submits that the Sarpanch in collusion with the Talati-cum-Mantri had submitted nomination of his son Vijaybhai Shantibhai Patel as Sarpanch. Three nominations from wards Nos. 6 7 and 8 were filed up at the instance of the Sarpanch. The said nominations were of scheduled tribe members from wards Nos. 7 and 8 and scheduled caste member from ward No. 6. Thus elections from wards Nos. 6 7 and 8 went uncontested. The petitioners further case is that on account of non-publication of the election notice no nominations from wards Nos. 1 2 3 4 and 5 could be filed up and the result was that there was no election whatsoever from these wards.

(3.) Mr. H. L. Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner raised a solitary contention in support of the petition. He submitted that election notice at Annexure A which was sent to the Talati-cum-Mantri by the election authority on 28 was not duly published in accordance with the requirement of Rule 7 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayat Election Rules 1962 (the Rules for short) and hence due publicity was not given to the election programme as a result of which the entire election process failed. Consequently election held pursuant to the election notice at Annexure A is required to be quashed in toto and fresh election is required to be ordered.