MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question which arised for consideration in this case is in regard to the interpretation of subsection (4-A) of Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 195' (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ). Section 6 (1) of the Act provides that every Sabha shall in the prescribed manner, elect from amongst its members a Gram Panchayat bearing the name of its Sabha consisting of a Sarpanch and such number of Panches not being less than four and not more than ten, as the Government may determine taking into account the population of the Sabha area. In view of this Sub-section (6) the Government has to notify as to how many Panches have to be elected in a Gram Panchayat, besides a Sarpanch. Section 6 (4-A) of the Act provides for the number of Panehes which are to be elected belonging to Scheduled Caste. It reads as follows :" (4-A) If the number of Panches of a Gram Panchayat determined under Sub-section (1) is less than six and the population of Scheduled-Castes in the Sabha area of that Gram Panchayat is five per centum or more of the population of the Sabba area it shall have one Panch belonging to tie Scheduled Castes and if the number of Panches of a Gram Panchayat so determined in six or more and the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Sabha area of such a Gram Panchayat is ten per centum or more of the population of the Sabha area then it shall have two Panches belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Explanation--For the purposes of determining the number of Panches belonging to Scheduled Castes under this subsection the latest census report shall be taken into consideration. " For the purposes of this case, the first portion of Section (4-A) is relevant. It lays dow a that in those the number of Panches of a Gram Panchayat notified by the Government under sub-section (1) of Section 6 is less than six and the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Sabha area of that Gram Panchayat is five per centum or more of the population of the Sabha area, it shall have one panch belonging to the Scheduled Castes. On a reading of sub-section (i) of Section 6 and sub section (4 A) of Section 6, it is clear that there has to be a Sarpanch of a Grain Panchayat plus the number of Panches, as notified under sub section (I) by the Government, out of which one Panch has to be from the Scheduled Castes category.

(2.) THE dispute in the present case is in regard to Gram Panchayat Bachhauri. By a notification issued on December 31. 1992, the Government declared that there would be five Panches in village Bachhauri out of which one would be a Scheduled Caste. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Government has notified that there would be five Panches and since the definition of the word "panch" as defined in Section 3 (i) of the Act includes a Sarpanch. Therefore, the Sarpanch should also be treated as a Panch for the Purposes of Section (4-A) of Section 6 of the Act and, consequently, in a case where the State Government declares five Panches to be elected, it should actually mean six Panches and if there are six Panches then according to sub-section (4-A) of the Act, there should be two Scheduled Castes candidates and not one. The "panch" has been defined in Section 3 (i) as follows :

(3.) IT is not an ivariable rule that all similar words used in a Statute have to be given the same meaning. The context in which the word has been used has to be seen We have therefore, to examine whether the word 'panch' used in Sub-section (4-A) of Section 6 of the Act has to be given a meaning as defined in Section 3 (i) of the Act or the word 'panch' used in Sub section (4-A) is in a different context. In our opinion the definition of the word 'panch' cannot be utilised for the purpose of interpreting Section 6 (1) and Section 6 (4-A) of the Act. Here the word 'sarpanch' has been specifically used in a sense in contradistinction to a 'panch'. The Panch' cannot be equated to a Sarpanch. Besides the Sarpanch, the Government has to notify the number of Panches to be elected. Therefore, it is not possible to include Sarpanch in the definition of the word 'panch' otherwise, it will result in making an interpretation not contemplated by the Legislature. Since the context otherwise requires the definition of the word 'panch' cannot be used to interpret Section 6 (4-A) of the Act. in this view of the matter if the State Government notifies under Section 6 (i) of the Act that five Panches have to be elected then only one Panch belonging to the Scheduled Castes has to be elected and not two as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is wholly without substance.