MANGA DEVTIA Vs. SOHLU PAHLADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been placed before us in pursuance of my order of reference dated 19-3-1965.

(2.) THE controversy has arisen out of an election of the members of the Executive committee i. e. , Panches of the Gram Sabha of village Kurlan held on 4-1-1964 in which Zila Singh, Manga son of Neki, Manga son of Devtia, Ranjit and Chatra were declared elected. One Sohlu son of Pahlada thereupon filed an election petition challenging the election of Zila Singh who, according to the election petitioner, had been born on 1-11-1941, with the result that on the date of the election, he was 22 years and a few months old. Being less than 25 years of age, he was not qualified to be elected under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter described as the Act ). Reference was made in the petition to Section 6 (5) (a) of the Act and Article 173 of the Constitution. The Prescribed Authority (Illaqa Magistrate) on 18-9-1964 came to the conclusion that Zila Singh was less than 25 years of age on 3-1-1964, the date for filing of nomination papers and was, therefore, not qualified to contest the election of the office of Panch in accordance with Section 6 (5) (a) of the Act read with Article 173 of the Constitution. After so holding, the learned prescribed authority proceeded to set aside the election of all the returned candidates in the following words:-

(3.) IN the present proceedings initiated by Manga son of Devtia, Ranjit son of barhma and Chatra son of Panshi, the challenge is directed against this order on the ground that under the law it was only Zila Singh's election which could be set aside and the prescribed authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the election of the other returned Panches. In the application for the necessary writ or directions in this Court, it has been averred in paragraph 11 that the order of the prescribed authority itself showed that it was only concerned with the matter about the disqualification of respondent Zila Singh. The concluding portion of the order, therefore, is not consistent with the judgment, nor is it supported by the evidence and the pleadings of the case. In paragraph 12, the plea has been elaborated by urging that every Panch has his own qualification and disqualification and the disqualification of one of the Panches cannot and does not in law invalidate the election of the other Panches. In the return filed by the Illaqa Magistrate, reply to these two paragraphs is given in the following words :--