HAZURA SINGH Vs. MUNSHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of the Gram Panchayat of village Dakonda, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala was to be held in August 1978 and according to the election programme, nomination papers were filed on August 20, 1978. The petitioners were declared elected as the number of seats as well as the nomination papers filed were the same. Munsha Singh, respondent No. 1 challenged the election of the petitioners on the ground that his nomination papers were not entertained by the Returning Officer. He also took up other grounds, but the only ground which prevailed with the Prescribed Authority was that the nomination papers of respondent No. 1 and some other persons were wrongly not entertained by the Returning Officer and, therefore, the election of the petitioners was set aside. On appeal by the petitioners, the District Judge affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority. Hence this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It was canvassed by Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the non-entertainment of nomination papers would amount to non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter called the Election Rules) and unless it is shown that the result of the election was materially affected, the election cannot be set aside. In my view, the non-acceptance of nomination papers by the Returning Officer would mean the rejection of the nomination papers and for the rejection of the nomination papers the finding of material affect is not necessary and the election can be set aside without recording as to how the result of the election was materially affected. Under Section 13-O(1)(c) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, the election can be set aside if the nomination papers have been improperly rejected. Non-acceptance of the nomination papers would amount to rejection of the nomination papers. In a democratic set-up serious results would ensue if the Returning Officer refuses to entertain the nomination papers of some candidates. But, in the present case, I am of the view that respondent No. 1 did not present his nomination papers to the Returning Officer as is clear from the statement of the Returning Officer Balvinder Singh (P.W. 1) himself. Apart from the statement of P.W. 1 the conduct of respondent No. 1 is such that no implicit reliance can be placed on his statement. He did not file any complaint either to the S.D.M. or to the Deputy Commissioner or to the District Development and Panchayat Officer or the Director of Panchayats regarding the non-entertainment of his nomination papers. Under Rule 3 of the Election Rules the election programme was published by the Deputy Commissioner and the nomination papers were filed on August 20, 1978 and the result was to be also declared on the same day after the polling. If the Returning Officer did not entertain the nomination papers of respondent No. 1 in the morning, he could easily go to Nabha or Patiala to approach and complain to the higher authorities against the conduct of the Returning Officer, but, he did not do so and kept silent and filed the election petition on the last day of the limitation, i.e. on 18th September, 1978. It is true that if the petitioners were declared elected, their election could only be set aside by way of election petition, but respondent No. 1 should have complained to the higher authorities before the petitioners had been declared as elected.

(3.) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders Annexures 'P-1' and 'P-2' are quashed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition accepted