JAGMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jagmal Singh, a duly elected panch of the Gram Panchayat of village, Rajpura; has filed this writ petition under Articles 227 and 227 of the Constitution of India to call in question the legality and propriety of an order dated August 9, 1972, passed by the Secretary, Development and Panchayats Department of State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, removing the petitioner from the membership and chairmanship of the Panchayat Samiti, Patudi and disqualifying him from re election for a period of five years under section 103 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, (here in -after briefly referred to simply as the Act).

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner had been elected to the Gram Panchayat of his Sabha area and the Panchayat Samiti of his block, during the earlier term in 1965. In due course, he had been elected as the Chairman of the panchayat Samiti and was continuing to hold that office when he contested the Gram Panchayat and Samiti elections for the present terms in the year 1971 and 1972. There was some enquiry going on against him at the time under section 103 of the Act, in respect of some acts of mis use of powers alleged to have been committed by him as Chairman during the years 1967 and 1968. This enquiry was started somewhere in the year 1969 and was pending against the petitioner when he contested for the membership of the Gram Panchayat of the Sabha area in 1971 and the membership of the Panchayat Samiti on July 10, 1972. He was duly elected as a punch of the Gram Panchayat and a primary member of the Panchayat Samiti not -withstanding the fact that the enquiry in respect of the alleged misuse of power was pending against him at that time. It is not clear from the record whether any orders of suspension had been passed against him under sub -section (1) of section 103 of the Act. The election of 16 primary members, of the Samiti, including the petitioner and Sees Ram respondent No. 4 by the Panches and Sarpanches of the Gram Panchayats in the block area from amongst themselves under section 5(2)(a)(i) of the Act was notified in the official gazette, by the Deputy Commissioner and his General Assistant respondents No. 2 and 3, by a notification dated July 13, 1972, annexure A to the writ petition. A meeting for the co -option of women and scheduled castes members was then held on August 2, 1972 and the petitioner had also attended that meeting. The next meeting was fixed for August 11, 1972, for the election of the Chairman and the Vice -Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, but the petitioner and other members of his party failed to attend that meeting because the petitioner had been served that very morning with the impugned order dated August 9, 1972 (annexure B). The meeting had to be adjourned for want of quorum. In view of the five years disqualification imposed on the petitioner by this order, he is being prevented from seeking election as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti He claims that he enjoys a comfortable majority amongst the members of the Samiti and that respondent No. 4, who is a sitting Member in the Legislative Assembly from Pataudi constituency, has wielded his influence with respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and that the impugned order has been passed malafide by respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent No 4 to turn the tables on the petitioner and to title the balance in favour of respondent No. 4 The order (annexure -8) is, therefore, being impugned by the petitioner on the following main grounds: - -

(3.) AS regards the first submission, Shri Chandra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies mainly on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Din Dayal v. State of Punjab, (1966) 68 P.L.R. 938. That was a case under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act and a Sarpanch had been removed from office under sections 95 and 102 of that Act for his acts and omissions committed during an earlier term of office. It was held that the Sarpanch could not be removed for his acts and omissions committed during the course of his first terra of office after ha had been elected for the second term. An earlier Division Bench ruling of this Court under the Punjab Municipal Act in the State of Punjab v. Bikhtawar Singh L.P.A. 23 of 1959. Letters Patent Appeal No. 23 of 1959, decided on August 29, 1980, had been relied upon. The following observations from Bakhtawar Singh's case were reproduced verbatim : - -