KABUL SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of Shri Ajit Singh Nagpal, Ilaqa Magistrate, Panipat, allowing the election petition of Ram Singh, (Respondent No. 1 in this Court) questioning the election of Kabul Singh, (Petitioner in these proceedings), as Sarpanch of Gram Sabha, Kabri, Tehsil Panipat. The election had taken place in. December, 1963. The challenge to the election was based, so far as is relevant for our purpose, on the allegation that Kabul Singh, was a tenant of the Gram Sabha Kabri, on the date of the election. The learned Magistrate trying the election petition found the only issue arising in the case in favour of the election Petitioner and holding Kabul Singh to be a tenant of the Gram Sabha, set aside his election and directed a fresh election to be held.

(2.) BEFORE us, in this petition, the main question falling for determination is whether the impugned order of the prescribed authority is liable to be quashed on the ground that the election petition and, indeed all the proceedings during the course of its trial and the order of the prescribed authority, are all in English language, and, therefore, violative of Section 3 of the Punjab Official Languages Act No. 28 of 1960. This section is in the following terms:

(3.) ON behalf of the Advocate -General, Shri M.R. Sharma, has contended that Section 4(c) of the Act takes this case out of the purview of Section 3 because the prescribed authority in the case in hand is a Court subordinate to or within the jurisdiction of this High Court. In this connection, reference has also been made to Section 13(g) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act as amended in 1962, according to which every election petition has to be tried by the prescribed authority, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure. Of course, this is subject to the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act and the rules made there under The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act have similarly been held applicable in all respects to the trial of election petitions, - -vide Section 13(g)(2). The counsel has in this connection relied on Section 137, Code of Civil Procedure , Sub -section (3) of which lays down that where the Code requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any Court subordinate to a High Court, such writing may be in English. The submission is that if the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure is also to govern the trial of election petitions; then the provisions of Section 137(3) would also be attracted and under this provision pleadings have to be in writing and such pleadings could be written in English language. Mr. Sharma, has thus made a reference to Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which describes the classes of criminal Courts and has submitted that Shri Ajit Singh Nagpal the prescribed authority, was a Magistrate and, therefore, a criminal Court, as such of course it is contended that it would be subordinate to and also within the jurisdiction of this Court. Our attention has also been drawn to two decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as L.M. Wakhare v. The State : A.I.R. 1959 M.P. 208, and Dayabhai v. Natwarlal : A.I.R. 1957 M.P. 1, but I do not think these decisions materially help us in deciding the question raised.