HARBANS SINGH MANN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Harbans Singh Mann challenging the notification issued by the Punjab Government in March, 1965, (Annexure 'D' to the writ petition), appointing the General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, as an enquiry officer to hold an enquiry against the election of the petitioner as President of the Municipal Committee, Banga, district Jullundur.

(2.) According to the allegations of the petitioner, he was unanimously elected as the President of the said Committee on 1st of August, 1964. Karam Chand, respondent No. 3, who was then the Vice-President of this Municipal Committee, presided over the meeting held for the said election. On 4th of August, 1964, after the election, respondent No. 3, addressed a demi-official letter to the Minister for Local Government, Punjab, pointing out that the election of the petitioner as the President of the Committee was against law. Copies of this demi-official letter were also sent to the Home Minister, the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nawanshehar. On the receipt of this letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, asked for the comments of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nawanshehar. He also sought the opinion of the District Attorney as to whether any action could be taken on this letter or respondent No. 3 should be advised to pursue the ordinary remedy as provided under the law by way of an election petition. In accordance with the opinion given by the District Attorney, the Deputy Commissioner on 19th of October, 1964, ordered that no interference was called for under Section 20(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Act) and that the aggrieved party might pursue the remedy available to him under the law. Thereafter the election of the petitioner was approved and gazetted. On 27th of July, 1965, Shri V.K. Chib, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, respondent No. 2, issued a notice to the petitioner (Annexure 'C' to the writ petition) in which it was mentioned that an election petition had been filed against him and the petitioner should appear in his court on 2nd of August, 1965, in that connection. Prior to this the petitioner had no knowledge that any election petition had been instituted against him. He appeared in the court of respondent No. 2 on 2nd of August, 1965, and made an application for getting the copy of the election petition on the basis of which the case was started against him. The proceedings for the trial of the election petition were going on in the said court. After inspecting the file, the petitioner came to know of the impugned notification issued by the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, by which respondent No. 2 was directed to hold the enquiry. The notification runs thus -

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 28th of January, 1966, praying that the notice (Annexure 'C') issued to the petitioner should be quashed as it is based on Annexure 'D' which is wholly null and void. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demi-official letter, dated 4th of August, 1964, written by respondent No. 3 and in which were mentioned the various irregularities committed in the election of the petitioner was in fact an election petition within the meaning of this word under rule 53 of the Municipal Election Rules 1952, (hereinafter called the Rules). The compliance of Rules 53 to 57 was essential for filing an election petition. In the instant case since these rules had not been followed, the election petition filed by respondent No. 3 was bound to be dismissed by the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, under rule 57. Rule 68 did not confer any power on respondent No. 1 to get an enquiry conducted in the election petition filed by respondent No. 3. This Rule would apply only if the Punjab Government wanted to have an enquiry held on its own motion and if there was reason to suspect that a corrupt practice or material irregularity had been committed. Both these conditions were missing in the instant case. The scope of Rule 68 was limited and as no procedure had been prescribed by the Rules for conducting an enquiry under the said Rule, no enquiry could be held even if the necessary conditions for directing such an enquiry were fulfilled in a particular case. It was also contended that since the election of the petitioner had been approved under Section 20 of the Act after sending for the reports of the authorities concerned, rule 68 could not be invoked for holding the enquiry in dispute. An enquiry having already been held by the Deputy Commissioner before he approved the petitioner's election under Section 20, no second enquiry was, competent under rule 68.