RULIA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution involves the question of interpretation and effect of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads (Amendment) Ordinance No. 2 of 1961, and similar subsequent Punjab Ordinance Nos. 4 of 1961, whereby clause (b) of Section 6 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act was amended. The unamended provisions provide that no person is eligible for election as a primary member of a Panchayat Samiti if such a person is in the "employment" of the Government or the Government of India or any other State of any local authority.

(2.) The election of two primary members representing the co-operative societies within the jurisdiction of the Banga Block Samiti was held in June 1964. Rulia Ram petitioner, Pritam Singh Lambardar (respondent No. 2) Madho Singh (Respondent No. 3) and Mehar Singh (respondent No. 4) filed their nomination papers for contesting the said election. The petitioner raised an objection to the nomination of Pritam Singh respondent No. 2, on the ground that he being a Lambardar of village Maqsudpur, was in the employment of the Government. The objection was overruled. At the election held on June 22, 1964 the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 respectively polled 32, 42, 38 and 2 votes. As a result, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were declared elected as they polled the highest number of votes. Though the petitioner was a candidate for being elected as a primary member, he was not a voter and could not, therefore, file an election petition.

(3.) In a possible attempt to validate the election of Lambardars, the Governor of Punjab issued ordinance No. 2 of 1964, on the 18th of August, 1964, by Section 2 of which the words "a whole time salaried servant of the Government" were substituted for the expression "in the employment of the Government". A subsequent attempt to pass an Act in terms of the ordinance did not succeed, though the Punjab Legislature did meet in the meanwhile. As ordinance No. 2 of 1964 was to come to an automatic and on the expiry of six weeks from the date on which the Punjab Legislature met, ordinance No. 4 of 1964 was promulgated on the 11th of November, 1964 and was made retrospective with effect from the 18th of August that year. The relevant amendment to clause (b) of Section 6 of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act 1961, effected by the second ordinance was the same as in the first one. In the meantime the result of the election was notified in the official gazette on January 22, 1965, and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were administered oath. On February 9, 1965 this writ petition was filed for setting aside the election of Pritam Singh respondent No. 2 on the ground that he had been elected in violation of the mandatory prohibition contained in clause (b) of defendant6 of the Act and in the alternative praying for a wait of quowarranto being issued against him on the same ground. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have not contested the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 has appeared through Shri P.S. Mann, Advocate, and has confined his submissions to restrict the relief to be granted to the petitioner to the setting aside of the election of respondent No. 2 alone. He has otherwise not supported the election of respondent No. 2.