MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKHTIAR Singh and others through present petitions filed by them have approached this Court for setting aside the election of Gram Panchayat Dhabh Khushal Johian declared vide Annexures P-7 and P-8 in rather exceptional circumstances.

(2.) THE facts as have been pleaded, reveal that the nomination and polling for the election of Gram Panchayat of village Dhabh Khushal Johian was fixed for 19th and 20th January, 1993 respectively and as per Section 5 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and the Rules as well as announcements by the State Government, the elections were to be held on the basis of the electoral roll for the Assembly elections i. e. the Electoral Rolls of 1988 and supplement rolls of 1989 on the basis of which February, 1992 Assembly Elections were held. Petitioner No. 1 Mukhtiar Singh, ex-Sarpanch of the village duly filed his nomination papers for his election to the post of Sarpanch and his vote No. was 432. Petitioner No. 2 Mukhtiar Kaur is stated to be wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 Sawaran Singh is stated to be supporter of petitioner No. 1 and they both duly filed their nomination papers for the election of Sarpanch as covering candidates of petitioner No. 1 fearing that under undue political pressure, nomination papers of petitioner No. 1 might not be rejected illegally. Petitioner Nos. 4 to 9 filed their nomination papers for the election of Parsches against four seats out of which one was reserved for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 5 Harbans Singh was also candidate for the post of Sarpanch and it is pleaded that on account of the influence that he yields, he got deleted valid votes No. 643 to 858 to 896, 934 to 948 and 1005 to 1024 from the list. Petitioner No. 1 had filed an application on January 6, 1993 before the District Electoral Registration Officer praying that the aforesaid votes might not be deleted from the voter's list. This application was marked to District Development and Panchayat Officer and then the Block Development and Panchayat Officers on January 6, 1993 for report after necessary action and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had further marked it to the Naib Tehsildar, Jalandhar for correction of the votes. However, it is stated that no further action was taken in the matter. Another application was filed by the petitioner praying to delete some votes but no action, it is stated, was taken on the said application as well. All the petitioners, it is pleaded, had been validly enrolled on the electoral roll of village Dabh Khushal Johian being above 25 years of age and incurring no disqualification Under Section 6, Sub-Section (5) of Section 102 (2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 or the Rules. They were eligible for contesting election of Sarpanch or Panch. Petitioners belong to Rai Sikh community and were eligible to contest the election of the Gram Panchayat as general candidates. They deposited Rs. 20/- which is the fee fixed for general category but inadvertently they filled Rai Sikh and signed the colour meant for scheduled caste candidates. It is significant to mention that no seat was reserved for a scheduled caste category of Sarpanch and it is only one seat out of panches which was reserved for scheduled caste candidate. Specimen of form of nomination paper filed by petitioner No. 1 has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-5, perusal whereof would show that in the column under the caption "if THE CANDIDATE IS MEMBER OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE, NAME OF THE PARTICULAR CASTE TO WHICH THE CANDIDATE BELONGS", it has been mentioned 'rai Sikh. ' Further in the column under the caption "i HEREBY PROMISE TAKING OATH UNDER SECTION 9 SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE ACT, I WILL RESIGN FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT OR PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, signatures of the candidate have been appended. Again in another column under the caption "i AM STATING HEREBY THAT I AM RAI SIKH WHICH IS DECLARED SCHEDULED CASTE BY THE STATE, signatures of the candidate are appended. It is for these mistakes, that have been quoted above, that the nomination papers of the persons who had sought election for the post of Sarpanch or panch were rejected. In so far as nomination papers of petitioners No. 1, are concerned, the same were also rejected on the ground that instead of depositing Rs. 20/- he had deposited Rs. 10/- only. As their nominations were rejected on the same ground, it is pleaded that the candidates who were left in the field i. e. respondent No. 5 and others, were elected unopposed as Sarpanch and Panches. It is this rejection of nominations of petitioners in the manner indicated above that has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) MR. Doad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners vehemently contends that none of the columns wherein petitioners had appended their signatures were material and the same could not possibly influence the election either way, Rai Sikh, he contends, is not described as Scheduled Caster anywhere and even if the petitioners belong to scheduled caste, they could always contest election for a seat meant for general category. It is further contended that insofar as the column with regard to resigning the seat of member Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly is concerned, the same is wholly meaningless as no sitting M. P/m. L. A. would ever contest election of Sarpanch/panch simply with a view to resign the seat of M. P/m. L. A, which is admittedly higher than that of Sarpanch/panch.