ANUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioners have been elected as Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Jind. Respondent no. 4 was nominated as a member of the Market Committee, he was duly elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Jind. A meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti was held on August 3, 1972, for co-opting five members of the Samiti representing the scheduled castes and women folk. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the nomination of respondent No. 4 as also the co-option of respondents Nos. 5 to 9, mainly on four grounds. Firstly, it is alleged that respondent No. 4 contested election to the Haryana legislative Assembly from the Julana constituency in the year was challenged by shri Dal Singh, the defeated candidate, whose petition filed under the representation of the People Act succeeded. Respondent No. 4 was held guilty to have committed corrupt practices and he was disqualified for a period of six years. It is stated that under Section 11-A of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the People Act) he was disqualified for voting at any election. Secondly, it is urged that the Sarpanches and Panches elected under the Punjab gram Panchayat Act are eligible to be elected as members of a Panchayat Samiti. Under Section 5 (a) of this Act, a person who is not qualified to be elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly cannot be elected as a Sarpanch or a Panch. The election as a member of a Panchayat Samiti included in its ambit the election of a person to any of the institutions which furnish elected members of a Panchayat Samiti. Because respondent No. 4 was debarred to become a member of the Sabha under Section 5 (a) of the Gram Panchayat Act, he could also not be elected or nominated as a member of the Panchayat Samiti representing the market Committee. Thirdly, because respondent No. 4 could not be validly nominated as a member of the Market Committee, Jind, on the ground of being a producer, it is submitted that he is working as a Principal of the Jat High and J. B. T. School, Jind, on whole time basis for the last 8/9 years and that his normal course of avocation is teaching profession instead of a producer of agricultural produce as laid down in section 2 (o) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Markets Act ). Fourthly, the co-option of Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 is challenged on the ground that no statutory notice was given for the meeting held for the purpose of co-opting them.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that respondent no. 4 disqualified under the People Act but this disqualification did not debar him to become a member of the Market Committee. Respondent No. 4 has also stated that he owns agricultural land in his own name and cultivates the same himself. He has further stated that he was an agriculturist in the normal course of his avocation. Being an educated person, he has adopted the teaching profession so as to bring about social uplift of the rural population. He derived uplift of the rural population. He derived major part of his income from agriculture, i. e. , by selling agricultural produce in the market at Jind.

(3.) COMING now to the points urged before me, it may be stated that there appears to be no substance in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel. Section 11-A of the People Act lays down that a person found guilty of a corrupt practices by an order under Section 99 shall, for a period of six years from the date on which the order takes effect, be disqualified for voting at any election, but the same Act gives the following definition of the word 'election' in Section 2 (d), which runs as follows:-"' election' means an election to fill a seat or seats in either House of parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir. " the use of the words 'any election' in Section 11-A of the People Act merely relates to an election to either of the Houses of the Parliament or of a State legislature. Election to a particular institution or a corporation is governed by the statute which governs such an institution or the corporation. If the Markets Act does not expressly provide that a particular disqualification under the People Act would also be regarded as a disqualification under it, then a person cannot be disqualified to seek election under the Markets Act.