INDER DEVI Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election of the Gram Panchayat of village Naruana, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, were held on August 17, 1978. Seven men and two women were to be elected as Panches. Balbir Kaur, Inder Devi petitioner, Surjit Kaur respondent and Gurdev Kaur unsuccessfully contested the election, Balbir Kaur secured 23 votes, Inder Devi 14, Surjit Kaur 12 and Gurdev Kaur 5. Balbir and Inder Devi were declared elected as Panches under sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. 1952, (hereinafter the Act ). On the same day Sadhu Singh petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat by the Presiding Officer. Surjit Kaur and Hakam Singh respondents filed an election petition challenging the election of Inder Devi petitioner as a Panch and that of Sadhu Singh petitioner as a Sarpanch. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated March 7, 1980, (Annexure P. 1) set aside the election of Inder Devi as Panch and that of Sadhu Singh as Sarpanch. The appeal filed by Inder Devi and Sadhu Singh against the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, vide order dated December 20, 1980, (Annexure P. 2 ). The petitioners have assailed the orders Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that during the pendency of the election petition Surjit Kaur has submitted an affidavit dated January 8, 1980 stating therein that she had not filed the election petition with the result that the Prescribed Authority vide order dated January 28, 1980, (Annexure P. 4) ordered that her name be struck off. The learned counsel has further argued that in view of the fact that Surjit Kaur had not pressed the election petition the election of Inder Devi as Panch could not be set aside. The contention is without merit Even assuming that Surjit Kaur did not press the election petition the same could be maintained by Hakam Singh alone who was admittedly a member of the Sabha. Under these circumstances, the order setting aside the election of Inder Devi Panch cannot be quashed merely because Surjit Kaur did not press her election petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Surjit Kaur and Hakam Singh could not challenge the election of Inder Devi as Panch and that of Sadhu Singh as Sarpanch in one petition. It was necessary that their election should have been challenged by filing separate election petitions. The impugned orders are liable to be quashed on this ground. This contention is also without merit. Surjit Kaur and Hakam Singh challenged the election of Sadhu Singh Sarpanch also on the ground that Inder Devi whose election was liable to be set aside has participated in the election of Sarpanch. It was, therefore, necessary to find out whether the election of Inder Devi as Panch was valid or was liable to be set aside and if her election was invalid what is the effect of her participation in the election of Sarpanch. The two causes of action--one relating to the election of Inder Devi as Panch and the other to the election of Sadhu Singh Sarpanch are so inextricably mixed up and interrelated that they must be treated as forming one composite cause of action. In a similar situation which arose in Mahan Singh v. Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon, 1981 Rev LR 20, it was held that a single election petition challenging the election of Sarpanch and Panchas is maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Amrik Singh Waryam Singh v. B. S. Malik, AIR 1966 Punj 344, in support of his contention that one election petition could not be filed by Surjit Kaur and Hakam Singh. This authority was discussed and distinguished in Mahan Singh's case (supra ). It was held that in Amrik Singh Waryam Singh v. B. S. Malik, AIR 1966 Punj 344 the election of the Sarpanch was not dependent on the election of the Panchas at all. For the same reason the ratio of Amrik Singh Waryam Singh v. B. S. Malik, AIR 1966 Punj 344 cannot be made applicable to the instant case. I, therefore, hold that Surjit Kaur and Hakam Singh could file a joint petition challenging the election of Inder Devi as Panch and that of Sadhu Singh as Sarpanch.