HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election to the office of Sarpanch of village Barsat, Block and District Patiala was held on 16.07.2008. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 7 challenged the election of petitioner No. 1 by filing election petition. It was alleged that the resolution electing the petitioner as Sarpanch was illegally passed in a wrong manner. Notice for holding the election of Sarpanch was not received by the said respondent. The Election Tribunal accepted the election petition on 04.08.2009 and declared the election of the petitioner as null and void and ordered fresh election to the post of Sarpanch.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before this Court pointing out that the prior notice has been served to all the members of Gram Panchayat and the election was rightly and properly held when the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. On 31.10.2009, this Court stayed the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the election Tribunal to permit petitioner No. 1 to continue as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat till decision of appeal.

(3.) SINCE the office of the Sarpanch became vacant, respondent No. 5 took action to hold the meeting of the Panches to elect the Sarpanch. It is alleged that respondents No. 1 to 6 were required to act in accordance with law while conducting the election to the post of Sarpanch. Reference is made to Rule 45 of Punjab State Election Rules, 1994 alleging that instead of initiating these proceedings, no action was taken and the proceedings were delayed to elect the Sarpanch. By not holding the election in this manner, show cause notice was issued to petitioners No. 1 to 4 on the ground that they were in illegal possession of the panchayat land. The petitioners filed response to show cause notice but they were placed under suspension on 22.12.2010. On the basis of this report, inquiry was also entrusted to the Deputy Director Panchayats and petitioner No. 2 was directed to appear in the complaint made by respondents no. 7 to 9 before the inquiry officer.