BACHAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bachan Singh petitioner is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Majri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra and was elected Member of Panchayat Samiti, Guhla. The Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, issued notice dated January 11, 1985 (P. 1) to the Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Guhla, including the petitioner for a meeting to be held in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla, on January 19, 1985, for co-option of members. The programme of the meeting (P. 2) was sent to the Primary Members along with the notice P. 1. After the Primary Members had been administered oath in terms of section 10 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act'), the co-option of the Members did not take place. The Sub-Divisional Officer who was to preside over the meeting on January 19, 1985, has averred in the written statement that no proceeding in the matter of co-option was taken on the date fixed for want of quorum. The case of the petitioner is that the names of five persons who were to be co-opted were duly proposed and seconded by the primary members on January 19, 1985. The Sub- Divisional Officer under the pressure of the opposite group illegally adjourned the meeting and it is incorrect that the adjournment was due to want of quorum.

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra issued another notice dated January 22, 1985, (P. 3) to the Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti for a meeting to be held on January 27, 1985, for co-option of members. The meeting was duly held on January 27, 1985 and five members were co-opted. The petitioner has assailed the co-option of respondents No. 4 to 8 as Members of the Panchayat Samiti on January 27, 1985, in the present writ.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti requisitioned and held on January 19, 1985, was wrongly adjourned for ulterior motives. The persons proposed and seconded for co- option on January 19, 1985, should be taken as duly co-opted members. The co- option of respondents No. 4 to 8 made in the subsequent meeting on January 27, 1985, is bad. The contention is without merit.