SMT. KULWANT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election to the Gram Panchayat, Walipur were held on January 20, 1993. As no lady had contested for the office of Panch, co -option of two lady Panches was required to be made as per Sec. 6(4) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana -II, accordingly issued a letter dated February 1, 1993 Annexure P -l to the petition, calling upon the Panches to meet on February 9, 1993 to co -opt two lady Panches. It has been averred in the writ petition that the co -option of the lady Panches was required to be made in the manner provided by Rules 6 and 7 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Co option of Panches) Rules. 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Co -option Rules) it appears that the petitioner and one Baljinder Kaur were proposed and seconded in the meeting held on February 9, 1993 but despite the procedure having been complied with and though Baljinder Kaur was declared to have been co -opted, the petitioner was not so declared and respondent No. 3 instead issued a fresh notice for making a fresh co -option on February 16, 1993 A copy of this notice has been annexed as Annexure P -2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been riled claiming that once the co -option had been validly made on the February 9, 1993, a second co -option could not be ordered subsequently.

(2.) Separate replies have been filed, one on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and the other by the added respondents. The stand of respondents No. I to a is that in the co -option held on February 9, 1993, Kartar Chand, Panch proposed the name of Smt. Baljinder Kaur and the said proposal was seconded by Gurbans Singh, Sarpanch. Similarly, Kulwant Kaur, petitioner No. 1 was proposed and seconded by Mohinder Singh and Kabul Singh, Panches whereas Shakuntala Devi was proposed by Bhola Paul but not seconded by anyone. It has been admitted that Baljinder Kaur was accordingly held to have been co -opted but no reason has been spelt out as to why petitioner No. 1 had been left out. In the reply filed by the added respondents, the stand taken is somewhat different. It has been pointed out that prior to the election to the Panchayat an agreement had been arrived at between the contending parties that the election as also the subsequent co option, if any, was to be made unanimously but at the stage of co -option, Mohinder Singh and Kabul Singh, Panches resiled from the agreement and proposed the name of Kulwant Kaur ignoring that of Shakuntala Devi. It has, however, been admitted that the name of Shakuntala was not seconded by anybody although an explanation has been tendered which will be dealt with later.

(3.) The fate of the case hinges on the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of Co -option rules, which read as under : -