LAWS(ALL)-1974-2-41

RADIUS ZAMAN KHAN Vs. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (PANCHAYAT) VIKASH KHAND CHHAJLEIT (KANTH) DISTRICT MORADABAD AND OTHERS

Decided On February 08, 1974
Radius Zaman Khan Appellant
V/S
Assistant Development Officer, (Panchayat) Vikash Khand Chhajleit (Kanth) District Moradabad And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners of these three writ petitions were elected Pradhan of the Gaon Sabhas in 1972 under the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1941. In Feb. and March 1973 elections were held to constitute Kshettra Samitis under the Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'. All the three petitioners were elected Up Pramukhs in their respective Kshettra Samitis. After their election as Up Pramukhs, the respondents which include the State of U.P., the District Panchayat Raj Officer, and District Election Officer treated the respective offices of Pradhan vacant, and took steps for holding election of Pradhan in the respective Gaon Sabhas. The petitioners thereupon approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents not to hold fresh election and to allow the petitioners to function in the office of Pradhan as they do not want to hold the office of Up-Pramukhs.

(2.) A Kshettra Samiti constituted under the Adhiniyam consists of, several Gaon Sabhas. All Pradhans of constituent Gaon Sabhas within the territorial limits of Kshettra are its members under Sec. 6(1)(i) of the Adhiniyam. There are other categories of members also as provided by Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Adhiniyam. Sec. 7 of the Adhiniyam provides for the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. They are elected by the members of the Kshettra Samiti. A candidate for the office of Pramukh need not be a member of the Kshettra Samiti, but he must be an elector having his name on the Assembly electoral roll of the area concerned. Up-Pramukh is, however, erected by the members of the Kshettra out of themselves. No member of Parliament or State Legislature or a person who may be Chairman of the Area Committee or Notified Area Committee, even though a member of the Kshettra Samiti is entitled for election to the office of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh Sub-sec (2) lays down that it any Pradhan is elected as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh then in that case he shall cease to hold the office of Pradhan notwithstanding anything contained in any Other enactment. The Sec. further requires that the Pradhan who may be elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh shall continue to be ex-officio Chairman of the Kshettra Samiti and in the vacancy caused by his election as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh in the office of Pradhan shall be filed up and the person elected in that vacancy is entitled to be a member of the Kshettra Samiti under Sec. 6 of the Adhiniyam. All the three petitioners were members of their Kshettra Samitis by virtue of being Pradhan of respective Gaon Sabbas. On their election as Up-Pramukh the respondents treated the office of Pradhan vacant. Thereupon they took filling the vacancy so caused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that Sec. 7(2) of the Adhiniyam was void as it practised discrimination and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that under the Adhiniyam a Pramukh or a Up-Pramukh need not be a Pradhan, nor he is required to be a member of the Kshettra Samiti. If a person not being a Pradhan is elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of the Kshettra Samiti, in that contingency he is not prohibited from holding the office or Pradhan and Pramukh or Up-Pramukh simultaneously Sec. 7(2) of the Adhiniyam, according to the learned counsel, does not prohibit the holding of both the offices in a converse, case although a Pradhan if elected Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is not permitted to hold both the offices. Sec. 7(2) thus practices discrimination without there being any reasonable basis for the same.