RAM DAYAL Vs. GULBHAR SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Dayal, Petitioner filed an election petition under Sections 13 -B and 13 -0 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 4 of 1953 as amended by the Punjab Act 26 of 1962 read with Rule 42 of the Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 to set aside the election of Moni Ram, Respondent No. 2 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Thuian, tehsil Fatehabad, district Hissar. It is not disputed that the Petitioner deposited the amount of security required under Section 13 -C of the Act read with Rule 44(1) of the above -said rules. The contesting Respondent did not appear at the trial of the petition and proceedings were held ex parte against him by orders of the Prescribed Authority dated March 28, 1964. At the conclusion of the trial on April 30, 1964, the Prescribed Authority accepted the election petition and set aside the election of Respondent No. 2 as Sarpanch. The Petitioner was indisputably entitled to obtain refund of the amount of security deposited by him at least thirty days after the grant of his election petition.

(2.) ON June 15, 1964, Respondent No. 2 made an application for setting aside the ex parte order allowing the election petition. In reply to that application the Petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to set aside the ex parte order. Written objections against the application of the second Respondent were put in on behalf of the Petitioner. Copy of those objections has been field as annexure C to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority respected all those objections and by order dated July 29, 1965 (copy annexure D to the writ petition) allowed the application of the second Respondent dated 15th June, 1964, and set aside the ex -parte order allowing the election petition. He then adjourned the case to 12th August, 1965, for Moni Ram, Respondent to file his written statement in reply to the election petition. It is at that stage that this writ petition was filed on August 9, 1965, to quash and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29th July, 1965.

(3.) IT was then contended that after pronouncing his final order, though ex parte, in the election petition, the Prescribed Authority was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain any subsequent petition relating to the case which had been finally disposed of. This could be so if the Prescribed Authority had been appointed only for the trial of the particular election petition. But a reference to Rule 42 of the above -said rules makes it clear that all election petitions under the Act have to be tried by the Ist Class Executive Magistrate of the Illaqa. Before the separation of the Executive from the Judiciary, the relevant expression in Rule 42(1) was "Illaqa Magistrate". That being so, the petition lies to a Court which is otherwise constituted and functioning in the area. It cannot be said, therefore, that, after deciding any case which comes before a regular Court, it becomes functus officio in the absence of a statutory provision to that effect. I am, therefore, not able to uphold the second contention of the learned Counsel either.