BACCHANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO unsuccessful candidates have joined hands in this petition challenging the election held for the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mohana, the result of which was declared on 6-2-1989 in favour of respondent No. 4, Chhote Singh son of Mangal Singh. When the petition was admitted, care was taken to limit the scope of controversy to the question whether the election process as a whole was vitiated as a result of the symbol "lotus Flower" being printed on the ballot paper resulting in the voters being misguided. Accordingly, we are required to resolve in this matter that controversy only.

(2.) THE crucial facts in regard to that controversy are mostly admitted, manifested albeit on the face of Annexure P/1 of the petition and R/1 of the common return of three respondents -Collector, District Gwalior; Gram Panchayat Mohana, Tahsil Ghatigaon; and the Assistant Returning Officer. The ballot paper used in the election is Annexure P/1 on which 11 different symbols are printed vertically, in tandem, following indeed the order in which the symbols are mentioned in the relevant Rule 31 (2) to which we shall advert in due course. It will suffice to note here this much only that ten candidates had contested the election and each of them was allotted one of the prescribed symbols, but the symbol, 'flower' (as described in the Rules) was not assigned to any candidate though that was printed on the ballot paper. As per Result Sheet, Annexure R/1, total votes cast were 3470 and respondent No. 4 had polled the highest number of 769 votes; petitioner Bacchanlal polled 666 and the other petitioner Sultan Khan poled 115 votes. There is also no dispute between the two petitioners and respondent No. 4 that as many as 210 votes were declared invalid although in their return, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have put the figure at 57. The said respondents in their return have also referred to the order of the State Government dated 12-9-1988 (Annexure R/2) in which is manifested a direction to all Collectors of the State to ensure that symbol No. 7 ("flower") prescribed under Rule 31 (2) of the relevant Rules is not allotted to any candidate because of the similarity of the symbol with "lotus Flower" which the Election Commission of India has reserved for a political party. The Returning Officers were required to be informed thereunder for taking care against allotment of that symbol to any candidate for the Office of Sarpanch in the Election held for any Gram Panchayat in this State.

(3.) WE may now refer conveniently to the relevant provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1981, for short, 'the Act' and the relevant Rules aforesaid, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1988, for short 'the Rules', framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the relevant provisions of Sections 17, 36 and 90 of the Act. According to the long title of the Act, it has been enacted to "consolidate and amend the law relating to establishment of panchayats with a view to simplify the law for the purpose of ensuring efficient panchayat administration in the State". It is not necessary to refer to its precursor, M. P. Panchayat Act, 1962, but it is pertinent still to note that the Act is meant to enforce the Directive Principles of the Constitution as Article 40 obligates "village panchayats" to be organised by State and to be endowed "with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government". The term "prescribed Authority" is defined in Section 2 (xiv) and that is to be noted because an "officer or authority as the State Government may, by notification, direct to discharge the functions of a prescribed authority" as per that provision, and he has a crucial role to play in the administration of the Panchayat. Under Section 3, the three tiers of the "panchayati Raj" are respectively, a gram panchayat for a village or group of villages; a janapada panchayat for a block; and a zila panchayat for a district. State Government is authorised under Section 5 to exercise "general control" on all panchayats. though as per Section 6, every panchayat is contemplated as a "body corporate", with all necessary trappings. While Section 9 speaks of "disqualification" for registration of voters in Gram Panchayat area, the conditions of registration of voters are described in Section 10. "voter" registered under (he Act may offer himself to be "elected" or "co-opted" as a "pancha", or even "up-sarpanch" or "sarpanch, as per proviso to Section 11 (1), as amended, but the "prescribed Authority is empowered to "appoint" a Panch if any Ward under any Gram Panchayat fails to elect a Panch and provision of co-option of a Panch is envisaged under Sub-Section (2) of Section 11. As per Section 16 (amended by Act No. 26 of 1988), provision is made for election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. While direct election to the Office of Sarpanch is envisaged under Section 15 (1), under Sub-section (4) thereof an Up-Sarpanch is elected from amongst the Panchas. The Prescribed Authority is also authorised to "appoint" under Section 15 (6) a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch should the Panchayat voters fail to elect the said office-bearers, subject indeed to the "declaration" envisaged under Section 30.