KARTAR SINGH Vs. S.D.M. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Kartar Singh elected -Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Mandi Kalan, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda, for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order Annexure 'P. 1' to the Writ Petition which was passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer (C) Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda, on November 12, 1980.

(2.) The background of the matter culminating with the passing of the impugned order may be, briefly, noticed. As alleged in the Writ Petition, the vacancy for the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Mandi Kalan occurred on account of the death of the previous Sarpanch Jagir Singh. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer convened a meeting of the Panchayat on March 3, 1980 for the co -option of a member to fill up the vacancy of the Sarpanch vice Jagir Singh deceased. It is specifically alleged in para 3 of the Writ Petition that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had convened a meeting on March 3, 1980 for electing an Acting Sarpanch till the election of the Sarpanch was held on permanent basis. It is further averred that it was made clear in the notice that the election was only for the acting Sarpanch and the Acting Sarpanch was to hold office till a Sarpanch was elected on permanent basis. In consequence of the said notice and convening of the meeting, two persons contested for the office of the Acting Sarpanch namely, Surjit Singh Respondent No. 2 and Ganga Singh Panch Ganga Singh was defeated in that election and consequently Respondent No. 2 Surjit Singh WAS installed as Acting Sarpanch. Subsequently, an other meeting was convened by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on July 30, 1980, for the election of a regular Saapanch on permanent basis for the remaining term of the Gram Panchayat The candidates in this election were Kartar Singh Petitioner and Surjit Singh Respondent No. 2. The election result disclosed that the Petitioner got the maximum number of votes as compared to his opponent -Respondent No. 2 and he, i.e., the Petitioner was, therefore, declared as elected Sarpanch in that meeting. Respondent No. 2 challenged the result of the election by means of an Election Petition which was filed before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phul, on August 28, 1980. Along with the Election Petition, 'he filed an application making an interim prayer that the Petitioner be not handed over the charge of Sarpanch and that the election -Petitioner i.e., Respondent No. 2 should continue to act as Sarpanch during the pendency of the Election Petition It was this prayer which was granted by the Sub -Divisional Officer (C) Rampura Phul vide impugned order Annexure 'P. 1'. The said officer affirmed his earlier ad interim order passed to the effect that Respondent No. 2 may not hand over charge of the office of the Sarpanch to the Petitioner till the disposal of the Election Petition.

(3.) Both the Respondents have filed written replies to the Writ Petition by way of separate affidavits. In so far as the Official Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the allegations made in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Writ Petition have been admitted in toto. As regards para 4 of the Writ Petition, it is also admitted that a meeting for the election of Sarpanch on permanent basis was held on July 30, 1980. The remaining crucial allegation that out of the two candidates who had contested the election held on July 30, 1980, the Petitioner was elected, was not admitted. Respondent No. 2 Surjit Singh in his written reply has, however, controverted the allegations in the writ petition, through in a general way. It is pertinent to note that the specific allegation which was made in para 3 of the Writ Petition that the meeting which was held on March 3, 1980 was for the election of Acting Sarpanch, was not specifically denied and all that is mentioned in the reply is The word 'Acting Sarpanch' is a misnomer which is nowhere found under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Respondent No. 2, however, persisted in his stand that he had been duly elected in the meeting dated March 3, 1980 and as such, he was entitled to the interim relief, as proved for. He also raised a point that the meeting held on July 30, 1980, was not a valid meeting, as the same was conducted by a person not competent to hold it. It was, however, admitted that the answering Respondent had participated in the meeting, though wrongly.