ZILE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE important question of law which has necessitated the reference of this writ petition by my learned brother Sharma, J. , to a Full Bench is whether an election petition under Section 13-B of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), as amended and applied in Haryana, calling in question the election of all the six Panches elected at one time to a particular Panchayat, is competent, and whether the prescribed authority under Section 13-C of the Act has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a petition on merits. The circumstances which have given rise to this question are neither in dispute nor complicated. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and respondents 4 and 5 were elected Panches of the Gram Panchayat, Chirasmi. Tahsil and District Sonepat, in the election to that Gram Panchayat held on June 29, 1971. The elected Panches co-opted petitioner No 5 as the lady Panch by election. The Panchayat consisting of the above-mentioned seven Panches then elected petitioner No 1 as its Sarpanch. Respondent No 3 filed the election petition, dated July 28, 1971, before the prescribed authority in which he arrayed petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 4 and 5 (all the Panches elected on June 29), 1971) as respondents 1 to 6. The other candidates who had contested the election but had been defeated therein (including petitioner No, 5) were impleaded as respondents 7 to 11. Annexure 'a' to the writ petition is a copy of the election petition of respondent No. 3. The only ground on which the election of all the Panches (petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 4 and 5) was sought to be declared void was that the Returning Officer had illegally and wrongly rejected the nomination papers of the election petitioner. A sum of Rs. 100/- was deposited by the election petitioner on account of security for costs of the respondents to the election petition.

(2.) BY his order, dated August 6, 1973 (Annexure 'b' to the writ petition), Shri S. Y. Quraishi, I. A. S. , Executive Magistrate First Class, Sonepat, the Prescribed Authority under the Act allowed the election petition (on the finding that the nomination papers of the election petitioner had been wrongly rejected), and set aside the election of the elected Panches (described as respondents in the order ). The validity and correctness of the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority (Annexure 'b') was impugned in this writ petition, dated October 3, 1973, by four out of the six Panches who had been originally elected as such on June 29, 1971.

(3.) WHEN the petition came up for hearing before my learned brother Sharma, J. , it was argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that a single election petition to challenge the election of all the six Panches was not competent in view of my judgment in Amrik Singh v. B. S. Malik, AIR 1966 Punj 344, which had been subsequently followed by Sharma, J. himself in Ram Bakhsh v. J. P. Narang, Civil Writ No. 2013 of 1972, decided on July 28, 1972 (Punj ). The other grounds on which the order of the Prescribed Authority was attacked were gone into by the learned Judge, but did not find favour with him. Those grounds of attack do not therefore, survive for decision before us.