DHIAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by dhian Singh challenging the legality of the order dated 17-10-1964 passed by the prescribed Authority under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act respondent No. 2

(2.) IT appears that the election to Gram Panchyat, Kharwar, District Kangra, took place in December 1963. Three person, namely, the petitioners Gian Singh, respondent No. 5 and Chaudhry Ram respondent No. 6 filed their nomination papers for the office of Sarpanch. As a result of the election the petitioners was declared elected. This election was challenged by an election petitioners which was filed by Ranu Ram respondent No. 3 and Rulia Ram respondent No. 4 under S. 13 c of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act 1952. A number of allegations were made for setting aside this election but in the present petitioners we are only concerned with two of them- (1) that the nomination paper of Gian Singh has been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer as he was alleged to have been in arrears of some tax imposed by the Gram Panchayat and (2) that the withdrawal application filed by Gian Singh along with several other was not valid in law. The Prescribed authority who tried this election petitioners came to the conclusion that it has not been proved that Gian Singh was in arrears of an tax imposed by the Gram panchayat and (2) that he withdrawal application had been filed jointly by 1person including Gian Singh. There was no provision for collective withdrawal by the candidates and each one of them had to give a separate notice of withdrawal in writing to the returning Office. That being so there was no withdrawal by the candidate and each one of them had to give a separate notice of withdrawal in writing to the Returning Officer. That being so there was no valid withdrawal by gian Singh. Since his nomination paper had been improperly rejected by the returning Officer the election of the petitioners at Sarpanch was not proper and was therefore set aside. This led to the filing of the present writ petitioners by dhian Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions before me-- (1) that the Prescribed Authority was in error in holding that Gian Singh was not proved to be a defaulter. His name was shown in the defaulter's list Exhibit P. F. and that was enough for the Returning Officer who had therefore validly rejected his nomination paper on that ground and (2) that the Prescribed Authority erred in law in holding that under the Rules every candidate had to file a separate withdrawal application. No such provision was made in the Rules for this purpose. A number of candidate could under the law file a joint withdrawal application.