KARTA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARTA Ram petitioner was elected a Panch of Gram Sabha, Bhadal Thua on 4th of January, 1964. On a petition filed by the third respondent Prem Chand this election was set aside by the Ilaqa Magistrate, Nabha as Prescribed Authority on 20th of August, 1964, on two grounds. It was found by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner became a tenant of the Gram Panchayat by virtue of its resolution Exhibit P. B. of 17 of November, 1963, and had actually paid the lease money of Rs. 900 in two instalments of Rs. 600 and Rs. 300 on 17th of November and 19th of December, 1963, respectively. It was further found by the Prescribed authority that the petitioner had been dismissed from the post of Patwari on 13th of July, 1932, and for the second time his services were terminated from the consolidation Department by an order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 4th of May, 1954. In the view of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner being a tenant of the Gram Panchayat and having been dismissed from government service had disentitled himself to stand for election as or to continue a Panch.

(2.) HIS nomination papers having therefore been wrongfully accepted, the election has been set aside. The relevant provisions of law are contained in Sub-section (5)of Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, which pro-vides that:

(3.) THE order of the Prescribed Authority has been challenged in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by Karta Ram and the matter was placed before me in the first instance as a Single Judge, on 18th of February 1965. It was contended before rue by Mr. Babu Ram Aggarwal on basis of a decision given by me in Balak Ram v. State of Punjab, 1965-67 Punj LR 213, that dismissal per se did not entail the disqualification under Clause (f) of Sub-section (5) of Section 6. Mr. Goyal, for the respondent, on the other hand sought the support of a decision of Chief Justice Bhandari in Gulab Singh v. Pritam Singh, 1956-58 Punj LR 234, in which the learned Judge in construing a similar provision in the unamended Gram panchayat Act took the view that the disqualification could be spelled out from an order of dismissal and the person concerned would be deemed to be notified of it on receiving information of the order of dismissal. Being of the view that the matter in issue was of importance and called for decision of a larger Bench, I did not consider it necessary to decide the other matter on which the Prescribed Authority had given a finding adverse to the petitioner's case. The whole matter has now been placed for disposal before this bench and I will first take up the question on which there is a seeming difference in the view taken by Chief Justice, Bhandari in Gulab Singh's case, 1956-58 Punj lr 234, and my own in Balak Ram's case, 1965-67 Punj LR 213.