CHANDRAKANT RAMRAO SARAF Vs. PUNDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the grievance of the six petitioners who were members of the Turkabad Village Gram Panchayat is that their membership of the Panchayat had been illegally treated as vacated and cancelled and consequently on July 19, 1967 their names were illegally deleted from the voters' list for Gangapur Gat Panchayat Samiti, Turkabad. The grievance of the first petitioner is that on the basis of deletion of his name from the voters' list on July 19, 1967, the Tahsildar. as Returning Officer, Panchayat Samiti Election. Tauka Gangapur had illegally rejected the first petitioner's nomination for contesting the election for the membership of Panchayat Samiti.

(2.) The only facts which need to be noticed are as follows: The petitioners were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat for village Turkabad in December 1966. As elected members of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners were eligible to vote and contest the elections for Panchayat Samiti of Gangapur Taluka for Turkabad Circle. In connection with elections to Panchayat Samiti to be held on July 31, 1967, the last date for filing nomination papers was July 18, 1967. In that very connection the voters' list was published on July 12, 1967. Admittedy, in that list the names of the petitioners appeared. Petitioner No. 1 filed his nomination paper dated July 15. 1967 for contesting the election to the Panchayat Samiti. It appears that the Tahsildar of the village purporting to act under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Panchayat (Registration of Voters and Conduct of Election) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") on his own motion on July 19, 1967 deleted the names of all the petitioners from the voters' list. On the basis of that deletion, by the impugned order dated July 19, 1967 held that on account of the membership of the candidate (i. e. of Petitioner 1) of the Gram Panchayat, Turkabad having been cancelled, he was disqualified from standing for election. He referred to Rules 15 and 19 (2) (a) in the order.

(3.) Admittedly the petitioners' names have been deleted from the voters' list on the ground that they had ceased to be the members of the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of sub-sec. (b) of Sec. 40(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. That was the oral information given to the petitioners by the Tahsildar. The contention on behalf of the Petitioners is that sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 40 of the Act provides that the question of elected members vacating the office of the membership of the Panchayat can only be decided by the President of a Zilla Parishad after giving to the member concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard with a right in the member to file an appeal against the decision of the President to the State Government. The Tahsildar had no power under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 to delete the petitioners' names from the Voters' list on the basis that the petitioners had ceased to be members of the Panchayat, before that question had been raised before and decided by the President. In fact the question had never been raised and had not been decided by the President. The Tahsildar acted illegally and without jurisdiction in deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters' list purporting to act under the powers given to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3. As the action of the Tahsildar in deleting the names of the petitioners was illegal, the Petitioners were entitled to relief in that connection in this writ petition. As that action was illegal, the rejection of the nomination of petitioner No. 1 on the basis of that action was also illegal and petitioner No. 1 was entitled to relief in that connection in this petition.