VIDYA DEVI Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Shrimati Vidya Devi, challenging the order, dated 3rd February, 1965, passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Una (Reforming Officer of the Panchayat Samiti Election, Gagret, district Hoshiarpur), Respondent No. 2.

(2.) According to the allegations of the Petitioner, she was co -opted as a Panch of the Panchayat of village Nagnauli, tehsil Una, district Hoshiarpur, and her name was duly notified in the Government Gazette. She was entered at Serial No. 186 of the voters' list for the election to the Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Gagret, Khushi Ram, Kartar Chand, Maru and Rabhal were elected the Panches and Lambardar Dal Singh, as the Sarpanch of this Panchayat. One Kanshi Ram filed two election petitions against the four Panches and the Sarpanch. These election petitions were tried by the Illaqa Magistrate, Una, who set aside the election of all the Panches and the Sarpanch on 1st February, 1965. The election of the Petitioner had not been challenged and she was not even impleaded as a party in the above -mentioned election petitions. In the meantime, the Petitioner contested the election to the Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Gagret. The result of this election was announced on 22nd January, 1965. The Petitioner secured six votes, but she had not been elected. Similarly, Shrimati Rattan Devi and Shrimati Savitri Devi, Respondents 3 and 4, also contested this election and they got 3 and 2 votes, respectively, but none of them also was elected. Since the Petitioner had secured the highest number of votes from amongst the women, candidates, she was automatically to be co -opted as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 14 of 1964). The meeting for co -opting the women and Harijan Panches had been called by Respondent No. 2 for 3rd February, 1965. On that day, by the impugned order, Respondent No. 2, held that since the election of the four Panches and the Sarpanch of the Panchayat Nagnauli had been set aside, therefore, the Petitioner was no more Member of this Panchayat as the same did not exist. Consequently, she could not be co -copted as Member of the Panchayat Samiti, Gagret. Respondents 3 and 4 were, therefore, co -opted as Members. This has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Respondent No. 2 had erred in law in holding that the Panchayat Nagnauli did not exist and, therefore, the Petitioner automatically ceased to be a Panch of the same. Her election had not been challenged by any election petition and consequently, she remained a co -opted Panch of this Panchayat and since she had secured the highest number of votes amongst the women candidates, so far as the election of the Panchayat Samiti was concerned, she was under the law entitled to be so co -opted. It was also argued that Respondent No. 2, as the Presiding Officer of the co -option meeting^ had no jurisdiction to say that she was no longer the Panch of the Nagnauli Panchayat.