SHOBHA HARIBHAU JADHAV Vs. TANAJI BARKU JAGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an important question as to whether the words "election of a Councillor" in section 27(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to is the "act" include the process of co-option of members to the Panchayat Samiti constituted under the Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Samiti". The answer to this would determine whether the District Judge or the Assistant Judge can have any jurisdiction to entertain and decide any dispute as to the validity of the co-option, under this section 27.

(2.) The Act provides for the Constitution of (1) a Zilla Parishad for the area of each District as delimited under section 4 and (2) a Panchayat Samiti for the area of each block within such District as delimited under section 5 thereof. Every Zilla Parishad is to consist of "Councillor" elected under section 9(1)(a) of the Act and co-opted, ex officio or associated Councillors under Clauses (b) of (e) thereof, while every Samiti of a block is to consist of the same elected and Co-opted Councillor from the said block under clauses (a) and (b) of section 57(1), other co-opted ex officio "members" under clauses (c) to (e) and a few directly elected "members" under clauses (f) thereof.

(3.) The election of Councillor of the Poona Zilla Parishad was held in the month of May, 1979. Respondent No. 4 Sow. Shendkar was co-opted as its woman member under section 9(1)(b) of the Act being a resident of one of the blocks in the District. The names of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, Velha Block, also were notified thereafter in due course by the Collector of Poona under section 57(3)(b) of the Act. Sow Shendkar was notified therein to be one such member of the Samiti on the hypothesis of her being the resident of the block Velhe in terms of the address contained in the records. Every co-opted member of Zilla Parishad residing in the block area of the Samiti becomes its ex officio member under section 57(1)(b) of the Act. 3-A. A meeting of the Samiti was convened on 9th July, 1979, for purposes amongst others, to co-opt members for it under section 57(1)(d) and (c) of the Act to which Sow, Shendkar also was invited. The Samiti was divided into two groups and each group has sponsored candidates for such co-option. Petitioner No. 4 raised an objection to her membership of the Samiti and participation in the meeting alleging that she was not the resident of Velhe block. A ration card and extract of the electoral-roll of Pune showing her to be the resident of Pune was produced by him at the meeting. The Chairman of the Samiti, petitioner No. 3, relied on the same and ruled that Sow Shendkar, not being the resident of Velhe could not be such as ex officio member of the Samiti under section 57(1)(b) and as such was not entitled to take part in the meeting and vote. The respondents, i.e. the other members of the rival group, protested against this ruling and insisted on in adjournment and walked out of the meeting along with Sow Shendkar, when the same war refused. The Chairman proceeded with the meeting and declared the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 to have been co-opted respectively under Clauses (d) and (e) of section 57(1) of the Act.