LAWS(P&H)-1963-10-30

PURAN SINGH Vs. BHARTU AND ANR.

Decided On October 21, 1963
PURAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
Bhartu And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution, the Petitioner prays that the order of the Prescribed Authority passed under the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1962, (No. 26 of 1962) be quashed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the Respondent sought to challenge the election of the Petitioner to the Gram Sabha of village Kathura, tehsil Gohana, district Rohtak, under Section 13 -B and 13 -C of the Act. This right was conferred on the Respondent by the amending Ordinance and the petition had to be filed within 30 days of the notification of the Ordinance. The last date on which such a petition could be filed was the 26th October, 1962. It may be mentioned that according to Section 13 -B of the Punjab Act, no election can be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, this Chapter being Chapter 11 -A of the Act. Section 13 -C(1) provides that any member of the Sabha may, on furnishing the prescribed security in the prescribed manner, present on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub -section (1) of the Section 13 -O to the prescribed authority an election petition in writing against the election of any person as a Sarpanch or Panch. The prescribed manner is laid down in Rule 44 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 -hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Rules -Published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary, 22nd September, 1960. Rule 44 is in these terms:

(3.) AN objection was taken before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the election petition should be rejected under Section 13 -E of the Punjab Act because it was not filed in accordance with Section 13 -C, the substance of the objection being that the treasury receipt was filed after the period of limitation and the election petition though filed within limitation was no petition in the eye of law as it was not accompanied by a treasury receipt. This objection was negatived by the Prescribed Authority with the following observations: