ONKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by one Onkar Singh. He calls in question the election of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, Chairman and Vice -Chairman of the Market Committee, Kanina. There is no dispute that in a meeting of the Market Committee held on 20th of March 1971, respondents 4 and 5 were duly elected Chairman and Vice -Chiarman. The principal dispute centres round two matters; (1) that the meeting was not properly called as clear seven days' notice was not given as required by rule 4(2) of the Punjab Market Committees Chiarman and Vice -Chairman (Election) Rules, 1961. The second ground is that one of the nominated members namely Banwari Lal did not hold requisite qualifications which entitled the Government to nominate him to the Market Committee. He was nominated on the ground that he was a licence holder under section 13(3) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1970. It is now admitted by the State that he, in fact, was not a person who could be so nominate'. It is on this basis urged that the election of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman would be void because a non -member participated in the election. Regarding the election of the Chairman a further contention has been raised namely, that this Banwari Lal seconded the candidature of the Chairman and, therefore, he being not a member of the Market Committee, the proposal to elect the Chairman was void ab initio as it militated against the mandatory provisions of rule 5. On the facts and the legal provisions to which reference has been made, there is no dispute. The only question to be determined is what is the legal effect thereof so far as the attack on the election of Chairman and Vice -Chairman of the said Market Committee is concerned.

(2.) I propose to take the question of notice first. There is no dispute that the notice was issued on the 13th March, 1971 for a meeting to be held on the 20th March, 1971. The notice was served on the 13th March, 1971, but the fact still remains that it was not a legal notice as required by rule 4. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the notice is invalid, therefore, the proceedings of the meeting held on the 20th March, 1971 are also invalid, and so also the election held on that day of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman. The matter is not res integra. A Full Bench decision of this Court in The Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. v. The State of Punjab, ILR 1963(1) P&H. 761, at page 787 held that even if the notice was invalid, this Court will not interfere unless it was satisfied that manifest injustice had occurred. In the present case there is no manifest injustice inasmuch as the election was unanimous and even if the petitioner was not duly served and did not attend or there was no proper notice, it resulted in no injustice to him. On this short ground I would reject the first contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) SO far as the Chairman is concerned, the position is very simple. He was seconded by a person who was not a member and who could not thus second him. Therefore, there is clear violation of rule 5 of the Punjab Market Committees Chairman and Vice -Chairman (Election) Rules, 1961, which is in the following terms: -