LAWS(P&H)-1993-10-50

BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 13, 1993
BALDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALDEV Singh through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to handover the charge of the office of Sarpanch to him as it was he, who was elected in the panchayat polls and permit him to discharge the functions of Sarpanch of village Dudhar, Post Office Dakala, Tehsil and District Patiala. The relief, as noticed above, stems from the following facts.

(2.) IN pursuance of the notification issued by the Punjab Government on January 21, 1993, elections of village panchayats were ordered to be held in the State of Punjab. Nominations for the offices of Sarpanch and four panches of village Dudhar, to which petitioner belongs, were invited. He contested for the office of Sarpanch of that village and the other candidate, who contested for the office aforesaid, was one Gulzar Singh. The polling for the offices of Sarpanch and Panches was held on January 22, 1993 from 10 AM to 4 PM. Thereafter, counting was held at 5 PM. As per the case of petitioner, the Presiding Officer declared him elected as Sarpanch as he had polled 265 votes as compared to 262 votes secured by Gulzar Singh. A formal declaration was also made by the Presiding Officer in that behalf. Thereafter, he also attended oath ceremony which was held at Fatehgarh Sahib on February 5, 1993. Oath of office was administered by the Chief Minister of Punjab in a group. Jarnail Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala-respondent No. 2 vide his report dated January 23,1993 indicated the name of petitioner as elected Sarpanch alongwith four other Panches, namely, Bhagwan Singh, Labh Singh, Sukhchain Singh and Balvir Singh. The extract of the report regarding elected Sarpanches and Panches of Block Patiala, held in Phave-IV, has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-l wherein the name of petitioner appears at serial No. 27. On February 22, 1993 a meeting of the newly elected Panchayat was held under the supervision of respondent No. 2. Petitioner was surprised to see that he was not summoned nor he was permitted to attend the meeting in which co-option of other members was held. He made requests to respondent No. 2 but was unable to get charge of the office of Sarpanch. It is specifically pleaded in the writ that respondent No. 2 clearly told the petitioner that as long as he was there, he (petitioner) shall not be permitted to act as Sarpanch. On the facts, as have been noticed above, it is pleaded and so argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 and in particular Rule 31, after polling, the Presiding Officer conducting the election has to count the votes, make a statement to that effect and record the same in Form-V. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, oath has to be taken in a specified form in Schedule-IV of the Act. Further, as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act aforesaid, the Sarpanch is authorised to keep the custody of movable property of the Gram Panchayat. These being the statutory provisions, the action of respondents in not permitting petitioner to discharge the duties of a Sarpanch, is illegal, contends the learned counsel.

(3.) NOTICE was issued by the Motion Bench on March 23,1993 when the following order was passed: