LATUTANA Vs. RASOTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shortly put, the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : The appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 herein contested the election to No. 7 Papu Valley Anchal Samity from No. 80 Palen Anchal Samiti Constituency of East Kameng District, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the respondent herein being a nominee of the Indian National Congress party and the appellant herein being an independent candidate. After the election, the respondent herein was declared elected having secured 27 number of valid votes more than the appellant. Dissatisfied with the result of the election, the appellant impugned the same in an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal in terms of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001 (for short, "the Rules of 2001"), the challenge to the result of the election being on the ground that under the proviso to Rule 6 (2) of the Rules of 2001, a propose cannot subscribe to the nomination of more than one candidate, but in the present case, the proposer (Sachung Tana) or the present respondent had also proposed the nomination of one Smti Mama Tana as a member of 80 Palen Gram Panchayat and while the returning officer concerned rejected the nomination paper of Smti Mama Tana, he treated the nomination paper of the respondent No. 1 herein as valid, which is untenable in law. Treating the notice of the said Election Petition as served on the present respondent No. 1, the learned Election Tribunal proceeded with the Election Petition ex parte. In course of time, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and order, dated 16.12.2003, agreeing thereby with the contention of the election petitioner, it set aside the election of the respondent No. 1 herein and declared the election petitioner as having returned uncontested as member of Anchal Samity of the constituency aforementioned. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 16.12.2003, aforementioned the respondent No. 1 herein, as a writ petitioner, came before this Court by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 212/2004. By judgment and order, dated 26.3.2004, passed in the writ petition aforementioned, the learned single Judge held to the effect that no notice had been served on the writ petitioner-respondent herein. However, instead of setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and remanding the Election Petition to the Election Triunal, the learned single judge entered into the merit of the writ petition on account of the fact that both sides submitted before the learned single Judge to give a decision of the merit of the case irrespective of the fact as to whether the service of notice on the writ petitioner-respondent herein was proved or not. On merit, the learned single Judge took the view that the nomination of the writ petitioner was valid inasmuch as the Panchayat system introduced under the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997, perceives a 3-tier system, Gram Panchayat being at the bottom of the 3-tier system, Zilla Parishad being at the top and Anchal Samiti occupying the middle tier thereof and that there is no bar, under the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the rules of 2001, for a voter of a constituency to propose the nomination of candidate for more than one of the 3-tiersystem of the same constituency, that is to say, there is no bar for a proposer, who has proposed the candidature of a person for membership of Anchal Samiti, of propose also the nomination of a candidate for the election to the office of member of Gram Panchayat and/or for membership of Zilla Parishad. On these considerations, the learned single Judge came to hold to the effect that the proposer of the writ petitioner, having proposed at the same time, the nomination of a candidate for election to the said Gram Panchayat, did not violate the proviso to Rule 6 (2). On the conclusion so reached, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Election Tribunal and restored the election of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the conclusion so reached and the decision aforementioned delivered in Writ petition (Civil) No. 212/ 2004, the appellant, who was the respondent in the said writ petition, has impugned the same in the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr PC Deka, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. RL Yadav, appearing for the appellant, and Mr SS Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) Before entering into the merit of the writ appeal, it is important to bear in mind that there can be no dispute that Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997, envisages a Panachayat system, which consists of 3- tier, Gram Panchayat being at the base of the 3 tier system, Zilla Parishad being at the upper-most part of this 3-tier system and Anchal Samity occupying the middle tier. It is rule 3 of the Rules of 2001, which empowers the State Election Commission to fix the date of poll for election. What the word Election means has been defined in Rule 2(e), which states :