SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated December 18, 1973, accepting the writ petition filed by Harchet Singh, respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to this appeal are that election of the primary members of the Panchayat Samiti, Guhla Block (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti), was held on July 21, 1972. Respondent Harchet Singh and appellants who were arrayed as respondents 4 to 9 in the writ petition and some other persons were elected as primary members of the Samiti under Section 5 of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The election of the primary members was notified in the Official Gazette and a meeting of the newly elected members was called for September 3, 1972, under Section 10 of the Act for administration of oath to them, for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Samiti and for electing two members representing the Samiti to Zila Parishad. According to respondent Harchet Singh who filed the writ petition, appellants staged a walk-out from the said meeting without taking the oath. It is alleged that since appellants (respondents 4 to 9 in the writ petition) were in a minority, they wanted the Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting to some other date which request was not acceded to by the Presiding Officer to adjourn they, as a protest, walked out of the meeting without taking or making oath or affirmation of allegiance as prescribed under Section 10 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further averred that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer subsequently wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, requesting him to fix another date for administering oath to the appellants. Ultimately oath was administered to the appellants on July 6, 1973. Harchet Singh petitioner-respondent challenged the continuance of the appellants as members of the Samiti on the ground that they having refused to take or make oath or affirmation, their election should be deemed to be invalid and fresh election ought to be held.

(3.) In the return filed by the appellants contradicting the allegations made in the petition, it was specifically pleaded that the meeting called for September 3, 1972, was scheduled to be held at 10 A.M., but Shri Ram Paul, Executive Engineer, Irrigation, who was to preside over the meeting, did not reach the place of the meeting till 12.30 P.M. The appellants except Sant Ram appellant having waited for the Presiding Officer for quite sometime, left the place before the arrival of the Presiding Officer and that Sant Ram appellant pointed out this fact to the Presiding Officer that the other members had left after waiting for him for quite a long time. It is pleaded that the appellants never refused to take the oath and it was because of the late arrival of the Presiding Officer that they left the place of meeting and, therefore, it was in these circumstances that they could not be administered the oath on that day. It is pertinent to note that the respondent-writ petitioner did not file any rejoinder to this averment made in the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants by way of an affidavit of Gurdial Singh appellant. Sh. Ram Paul, Executive Engineer, the Presiding Officer was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, but he filed an affidavit in the following words :