PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing, the whole of the election of Gram Panchayat, Sarawan, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur on the ground that it was held on the basis of illegal electoral rolls.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the Gram Panchayat, Sarawan (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat) is constituted under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, issued an election programme for holding election of the Panchayat. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for the office of Sarpanch. The election of the petitioner was held on June 30, 1972. Respondent No. 7, Shri Tara Singh who was also a candidate for the office of Sarpanch, won the election by a margin of 17 votes. The respondents 8 to 15 were declared elected as Panches out of number of persons who contested for the office of Panches. Under the Act and the Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules,) there is no provision for the preparation and revision etc. of electoral rolls of the Gram Sabha for the election of Sarpanches and Panches. Rule 2(e) of the Rules defines the word 'elector' which means a person who is entered in the Electoral Roll for the State Legislative Assembly, in force for the time being in relation to the Sabha area concerned. From reading the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it transpires that for the purposes of Panchayat Elections, Legislative Assembly Rolls are to be made the basis. The Electoral Rolls for the election of the Panchayat were prepared by copying, verbatim the Legislative Assembly rolls. No opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioner and other interested parties to scrutinize and raise objections as to whether the persons on roll as electors possessed the requisite qualification. No machinery has been provided in the Act and the Rules for preparation of any additional rolls at the instance of electors who acquire the election rights after the preparation of the Assembly rolls. 393 votes which were not earlier in the list prepared for the purpose of election of the Panchayat was sent to the Returning Officer by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Muktsar, and the Panchayat Officer, Malout. The petitioner came to know about it on June 30, 1972, the date when the election was held. He and the other candidates raised objection to the said list but the Returning Officer did not accept them. The Act and the Rules should provide a procedure for adding new voters to the electoral rolls. The maintenance of proper electoral rolls is the essence of the local bodies elections. In case Assembly electoral rolls are to be made the basis for the preparation of the electoral rolls for election to the Panchayat, then there has to be a proper procedure for providing an opportunity to the interested parties to raise objection to the correctness of the electoral rolls and a procedure has to be provided for revision thereof. The electoral rolls on the basis of which the election has been held are illegal and, therefore, the election is liable to be set aside. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who denied the allegations of the petitioner and stated that the election was valid.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Panchayat Act does not provide any machinery for preparation of the electoral rolls for holding the election of the Panchayats. It also does not provide any procedure for revision of the electoral rolls. The elections in the present case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, were held on the basis of verbatim copy of the Legislative electoral rolls to which 393 votes were illegally added at the instance of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Muktsar, and Panchayat Officer, Malout. There was no procedure prescribed in the Act or the Rules to add those votes to the electoral rolls subsequently. I have heard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.