LILLAPORE GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. ZINABHAI KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is the Gram Panchayat of Lilapore Vejalpore Juth and is a formal party. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 are the 10 out of the 11 elected members elected to the said Panchayat in March 1965. Respondent No. 2 is the remaining elected member. Against these 11 elected members the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 filed an application under sec. 24(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Civil Judge Junior Division Bulsar challenging the validity of their election. Under sec. 24(1) the said application is to be filed at any time within 15 days after the date of the declaration of the results of the election. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the said elected candidates that the said application which was filed on 5-4-1965 was beyond the period of time provided for in the said sec. 24(1). That contention has been rejected by the learned Judge who held the application to be within time. Against that decision the 10 of the said elected members namely petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 have come to this Court by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The 11th elected member has been joined as respondent No. 9.

(2.) The short point in this petition is whether the application filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 before the Civil Judge Junior Division Bulsar was made within the period provided for in sec. 24(1) of the Act. To appreciate the submissions made on that point it would be appropriate to mention a few facts. The election programme for the Lilapore Vejalpore Juth Gram Panchayat was fixed by the Taluka Development Officer under sec. 18 of the Act. According to that programme the date for filing of nominations was 11-3-1965 for scrutiny of nominations 12-3-1965 for withdrawal 15-3-1965 for poll 29-3-1965 and for counting of votes 30-3-1965. The total number of seats in the said Gram Panchayat in respect of which this election was to be held was 11. The number of valid nominations filed did not exceed the number of seats and therefore under rule 14 of the Gram and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayats Rules) it became unnecessary to have a poll. The candidates who had filed those 11 valid nominations were the present petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 and respondent No. 9 and it is these candidates who have been declared to be elected. The short question is when and on what date can they be said to have been declared to be elected because it is within 15 days after that date that an application under sec. 24(1) of the Act challenging the validity of the election has to be filed.

(3.) There is some controversy as to what happened after it was found that there were only 11 valid nominations and that a poll was not necessary. Rule 14 of the Gram Panchayats Rules requires the Returning Officer to declare the candidates so nominated to be duly elected without any votes being taken and rule 25 provides that the Returning Officer shall cause the names of the elected candidates to be posted at the village chavdi or at the Panchayat Office or at such other public place if any appointed in that behalf by him. It is the contention of the petitioners that is the elected candidates that the Returning Officer carried out these obligations that is to say he declared under rule 14 the candidates validly nominated to be duly elected and he also caused the names of those candidates to be posted under rule 35 at the Panchayat Office and at the village chavdi and the petitioners have produced a copy of an order allegedly made by the Returning Officer in that behalf at Annexture `A. According to them this was done on 18-3-1965. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this action on the part of the Returning Officer amounted to the declaration of the results of the election as envisaged in sec. 24(1) of the Act and therefore the period of 15 days is to be counted from that date i.e 18 The respondents Nos. 1 to 8 who made the application in the lower Court for challenging the validity of the election denied that the Returning Officer carried out these obligations and in the alternative submitted that even if he did carry out these obligations what he did did not amount to the declaration of the results of the election as contemplated by sec.24(1). How under rule 35 the Returning Officer is also required to report the names of the enacted candidates immediately to the Taluka Development Officer and rules 36 which is relatable to sec. 18(3) of the Act provides that the Taluka Development Officer shall then publish the names of the elected candidates by causing a his thereof to be posted at his office the village chavdi and at the office of the Panchayat and according to the contesting respondent it is his publication by the Taluka Development Officer under rule 36 which in the present case took place admittedly on 22-3-1965 which amounted to a declaration of the results of the election as contemplated by sec. (1). The application which was as earlier stated filed on 5-4-1965 was within the period of 15 days from that date.