VINAYAK SITARAM PATIL Vs. NAVNITRAI BHOGILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 was elected as a Councillor of the Palghar Panchayat Samiti constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. Petitioner No. 2 was nominated as an associate member of this Samiti under Clause (c) in Sub -section (1) of Section 57 of the Act. As required by Sub -section (1) of Section 67, a meeting for electing a Chairman of the Samiti was convened on August 7, 1962. The petitioner and opponent No. 1. hereinafter referred to as the opponent, stood as candidates at this election. Petitioner No. 2 was not allowed to vote on the ground that he being an associate member of the Samiti had no right of vote. Petitioner No. 1 and the opponent secured equal number of votes, 12 each. Lots were then drawn and the opponent was declared to have been duly elected. Thereafter the present special civil application was filed.

(2.) MR . Paranjpe, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has relied on Sub -section (1) of Section 67 of the Act and has contended that this section gives a right to elect or to make a choice to persons, who are associate councillors under Clause (c) in Sub -section (1) of Section 57 and that consequently petitioner No. 2 was also qualified to vote at the election held on August 7. He has relied on the fact that whereas Clause (c) in Sub -section (1) of Section 57 is not mentioned in Sub -section (1) of Section 64, it is specifically mentioned in Sub -section (1) of Section 67. He has, therefore, contended that the person, who is an associate councillor under Clause (c) in Sub -section (1) of Section 57, is also entitled to vote at the election of the Chairman at the meeting convened under Sub -section (1) of Section 67. The learned Government Pleader, who has also appeared in this matter, and Mr. Sanghvi, have on the other hand contended that petitioner No. 2 was rightly not allowed to vote at the Chairman's election. The learned Government Pleader has relied on other provisions of the Act, to which I will presently refer, and has urged that Sub -section (1) of Section 67 cannot be regarded as an express provision giving an associate councillor a right to vote.

(3.) IT is in the light of these provisions that we have to interpret the words 'call upon..to elect' used in Sub -section (1) of Section 67. The persons called upon to elect are those mentioned in Clauses (a), (c) and (f) of Sub -section (1) of Section 57. The person mentioned Clause (c) is an associate Councillor. The petitioner has been nominated under this clause. Mr. Paranjpe has referred us to the meaning of the word 'to elect', which is 'to choose, to select, to make a choice.' The choice or selection can only be made by giving a vote to the person preferred. Mr. Paranjpe has, therefore, urged that as an associate Councillor is also called upon to elect or to make a choice, the right to vote must be held to have been conferred upon him. He has argued that Section 67(1) is consequently an express provision in the Act conferring the right to vote on the person falling under Clause (c) in Sub -section (1) of Section 57. The Government Pleader has, on the other hand, contended that as an associate Councillor is entitled to take part in the deliberations of the Panchayat Samiti, all Councillors, including the associate Councillor falling under Clause (c), are asked to attend the first meeting of the Samiti held for the purpose of electing the Chairman. This according to him does not entitle the associate Councillor to vote at the meeting. He has urged that the words 'called upon to elect' in the context mean 'called upon to meet to elect.' In support of this argument, he has pointed out that whereas Sub -section (1) of Section 67 does not refer to any meeting and only says that the Collector shall call upon the persons concerned to elect, Sub -section (3) begins with the words 'The meeting called under Sub -section (7)..