NATHULAL Vs. ADDL. COLLECTOR, SHEOPURKALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition deals with interpretation of section 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Before dealing with the facts, it would be apt to notice the provision itself. It reads as under :

(2.) THE present petitioner was elected as panch of Gram Panchayat Soikala. He was also elected as member of the Janpad Panchayat Sheopurkalan. This happened on 9th of June, 1995. He was supposed to give his option in terms of section 41 of the Act. He did not give his option. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the block passed an order to the effect that the petitioner would be deemed to have vacated the office of the Member -ship of Janapad Panchayat. This was done on the basis of one factor. This factor is that the petitioner had taken part in the process of casting his vote in the election to the office of Sarpanch. It be seen that for taking part in the process of electing a Sarpanch, only a panch of Gram Panchayat is eligible. It is this act of casting vote which has been construed as an option. No option or information in writing was ever given.

(3.) IT be seen that merely because the petitioner cast his vote to the post of up -sarpanch or that he was not permitted to cast vote when elections were held to the office of Janpad is not relevant because merely because a person had been deprived to vote or he has voted to a particular election is of no consequence. See Prakash Chand v. State of Punjab and others, (AIR 1977 P and H) 26. It was observed as under :