SHADI RAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Shadi Ram praying that an appropriate writ be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, respondent No. 1, and others, directing them to remove Gopi Ram, respondent No. 4, from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Karandi (District Bhatinda) and further instructing them to recognise the petitioner as the duly elected Sarpanch of this Panchayat and to administer the oath of office to him.

(2.) The allegations of the petitioner were that according to the election programme framed by respondent No. 1 for the election of the Panches and Sarpanch of this Gram Panchayat, the poll was taken on 30th December, 1963. Shri Baj Singh, Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Jhuneer, District Bhatinda, respondent No. 3, was appointed as the Returning Officer to hold this election. He also acted as the Presiding Officer for conducting the poll under Rule 15 of the Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as there was only one polling station in the Sabha area. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were the only two candidates for the election of the Sarpanch. After the close of the poll and in the presence of the candidates and other persons, respondent No. 3 counted the votes and it was found that the petitioner secured 316 valid votes, while respondent No. 4 only 203. Since the petitioner had obtained a larger number of votes, he was duly declared elected in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rule 31. The Returning Officer duly prepared the return for the office of the Chairman (Sarpanch) under Rule 35 showing the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as the contesting candidates, the number of valid votes given to each of them and the name of the petitioner declared to have been elected. A copy of this return was forwarded to respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, the result of the election was also sent to the office of the Block Development Officer, Jhuneer, the Police Department, Bhatinda District, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mansa, respondent No. 2, etc. The result of the election was also published in the daily Ranjeet, Bhatinda, dated 8th January, 1964, showing the petitioner as the elected Sarpanch of this Panchayat. The petitioner was expecting that the oath of office would be administered to him, but he was surprised to know on 29th January, 1964 that the oath of office was to be given to respondent No. 4 instead. Thereupon, the petitioner sent telegrams to the Chief Minister, Punjab, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mansa, the Chief Election Commissioner, Punjab, and the District Development Officer, Bhatinda, to the following effect.

(3.) Later on enquiries the petitioner learnt that respondent No. 4, through the political pressure and influence of his partymen, in whom the Chief Minister was also interested, got some false report made in his favour by the Returning Officer to the effect that owing to some clerical error, the votes polled by respondent No. 4 were entered in the name of the petitioner and those of the petitioner were recorded in the name of respondent No. 4 and thus the petitioner was wrongly declared as Sarpanch and that a correction be made in the result and in the return submitted under Rule 35. On this report, respondents 2 and 3 got the correction made in the papers and ordered that the oath of the office be administered to respondent No. 4. The petitioner then approached respondents 1 and 2, but they showed their helplessness in the matter and told the petitioner to seek whatever remedy be available to him. The oath of office of Sarpanch was, however, administered to respondent No. 4 on 30th January, 1964. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 10th February, 1964.