ANUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were elected as Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Jind, in the election which took place on July 10, 1970. In all, there were 19 Primary Members elected in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act). These 19 Primary Members had to co-opt two women and three persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, under Section 5(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act, as only one member belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had been elected as Primary Member. A meeting of the Primary Members for the purpose of co-option of 5 Members, as stated above, was called for July 29, 1972. The meeting had to be adjourned as the necessary quorum of 75 per cent of the members was not present. The second meeting under rule 4(3) of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis (Co-option of Members) Rules, 1961, was called for August 3, 1972, and notices were issued to all the Primary Members on July 29, 1972. This meeting was attended by 10 members which formed the quorum under rule 4(4) of the said rules and respondents 5 to 9 were co-opted as members. Their co-option and the nomination of respondent No. 4, Narain Singh, as Primary Member representing the Market Committee, Jind, were challenged by the petitioners in Civil Writ No. 2669 of 1972, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on October 4, 1972. The present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against that order.

(2.) The challenge to the nomination of respondent No. 4 is on two grounds, the first ground being that he is not a 'producer' within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 , which reads as under :-

(3.) The allegation is that respondent No. 4 is the Principal of Jat High and J.B.T. School, Jind, for the last 8 or 9 years and he does not 'in his normal course of avocation' grow, manufacture, rear or produce any agricultural produce personally or through tenant or otherwise. This allegation has been denied by respondent No. 4, who has stated that he cultivates his land with his own hands and his income from agriculture is more than his income from the post of Principal of the said School and that being an educated person, he chose to become the Principal of the said school with a view to satisfy his zeal for the rural uplift. He has produced a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner certifying that the respondent No. 4 is a producer and is residing in village Sindhi Khera, forming part of notified Market Committee, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind, as defined in Section 2(o) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 . According to the definition of 'producer' in Section 2(o), the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the person carries on his business or profession when a question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not, is final. In view of this certificate of the Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be said that respondent No. 4 is not a producer and was, therefore, not entitled to be nominated as a representative of the Market Committee, Jind. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was rightly repelled by the learned Single Judge.