RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contested for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Goara, tahsil Mehgaon, district Bhind. The election was held on 2nd June 1978, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were the other contesting candidates at that election. Respondent No. 3 Madhosingh has been declared elected to the office of Sarpanch. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of election of the respondent No. 3 as Sarpanch on several grounds which are mentioned hereafter.

(2.) The petitioner has taken several grounds in this petition. For the reasons given by us in our order D/- 14-9-1978 passed in Misc. Petn. No. 95 of 1978, reported in 1978 Jab LJ 715 (Laxmansingh v. The State of M. P, and four ethers), the grounds which are available in an election petition under Section 357 of the M. P, Panchayats Act are not being considered. We are considering herein only those grounds by which the validity of certain provisions of the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 4 of 1978) the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978); and the M. P. Gram Panchayat Nirwachan Tatha Sahyojan Niyam, 1978 are challenged. It may be mentioned that the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978) has replaced and repealed the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (No. 8 of 1977) and the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (No. 4 of 1978). Shri S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made this attack to the validity of the Amendment Act, Ordinance and the 1978 Rules on several grounds which are considered hereafter.

(3.) The first contention of Shri S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Section 6-A (1) (a) introduced in the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962, by the M. P. Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1978 (hereafter called the Amendment Act) is ultra vires Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 because it reduces the qualifying age of a voter to 18 years instead of 2l years. Learned counsel pointed out that Section 5 of the principal Act remains unchanged under which a voters list is required to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act, but Section 6-A(1)(a) has been introduced to bring about the above result. Prior to the amendment, according to Section 6 of the principal Act every person who was qualified to be registered in the Assembly roll was eligible to be included in the voters list of the Gram Sabha on account of which the minimum qualifying age of a voter was 21 years as laid down in Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The result of this amendment is that by virtue of Clause (a) the qualifying age of a voter in the Gram Sabha has been reduced to 18 years while other qualifications for being registered as a voter remain substantially the same. This is also clear from Clause (c) in Sub-section (1) of Section 6-A introduced by amendment. Except for relying on Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, learned counsel could not point out any other provision which prohibits reduction of the age of voter from 21 years to 18 years. Learned counsel placed reliance on Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6-A to contend that the qualifications for being registered as a voter remain the same as those for being registered as a voter in the Legislative Assembly electoral roll.