SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS this bunch writ petitions, the following questions arise on some of which there is no direct decision. Moreover, the same provisions have been interpreted or understood differently by different Deputy. Commissioners and different Returning Officers and similarly by the candidates and the voters. This has necessitated the interpretation of relevant law by this Court for the guidance of all concerned (1) Whether S. 5 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended in Haryana up-to-date, read with the Haryana Gram Panchyat Election Rules. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with specific reference to Rules 6 to 13, 18, 21, 23, 29 and 35 of the Rules, envisages reservation of any constituency or sent for Scheduled Caste candidate ? If not so, whether separate election is envisaged for the non-Scheduled Caste candidates meaning thereby that if in a constituency at least one seat must go to a Scheduled Caste candidate and if there is only one Scheduled Caste candidate, whether he is to join the election. i. e. , the process of allotment of symbols, putting a separate ballot box for him; has to be gone through: and whether he can be declared elected unopposed without allotting a symbol and a separate ballot box for him ? Similarly, if the total Panches to be elected are five, out of whom one has to be a Scheduled Caste and there are two Scheduled Caste candidates or more, but there are four non-Scheduled Caste candidates, whether the four non-Scheduled Caste candidates can be declared elected unopposed without election or they have also to join the election process. i. e. , by allotting separate symbols, separate ballot boxes etc. ? (2) Whether under Rule 43 of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to change the result of election declared by the Returning Officer wholly or partly ? (3) Assuming the elections to be illegal, whether the same can be set aside in a writ petition filed beyond limitation prescribed for filing of election petition?

(2.) THE first two points have arisen before us because different Deputy Commissioners have taken different views of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and have acted differently interfering with the election result in exercise of their powers under Rule 43 of the Rules. Similarly, different Returning Officers have taken different views of the same and have followed different election processes which would be clear from the following facts. I. C. W. P. No. 3284 of 1983.

(3.) IN this writ petition, total eight, Panches had to be elected out of whom there were to be two Scheduled Caste Panches. 15 nomination papers were received and out of them, two nomination papers related to Scheduled Caste candidates. The two Scheduled Caste candidates were declared elected unopposed and the election had taken place amongst the remaining 13 candidates. Writ petition has been filed within the limitation provided for filing the election petition. II. C. W. P. No. 3611 of 1983.