RAM RATTAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pandit Ram Rattan Shukla, petitioner and six others were elected Panches of Gram Panchayat, Khizrabad, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar in the elections held in 1982. Shri Lal Singh was elected Sarpanch. For having committed various irregularities in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch, Shri Lal Singh aforementioned was removed from the office of Sarpanch vide order dated July 3, 1986. Shri Lal Singh did not file any appeal and order of his removal became final. However, he died on July 23, 1986. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer summoned a meeting of the Panches of Gram Panchayat, Khizrabad to elect an Acting Sarpanch for August 12, 1986. This meeting was postponed and another meeting was called for August 21, 1986. The meeting was attended by three Panches, apart from the petitioner. Three other Panches did not attend the meeting, nor did the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The petitioner claims to have been elected as an Acting Sarpanch in that meeting.

(2.) Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, issued election programme (copy Annexure-P-7 to the writ petition) under R.3(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') for holding election to the office of Sarpanch by the Gram Sabha. The petitioner challenges this action of the authorities through this writ petition.

(3.) Shri K.K. Cuccria, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that (from) a conjoint reading of S.10 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short) and R.40 of the Rules, it is crystal clear that when a vacancy occurs by death, resignation or removal of a Sarpanch, an intimation to that effect shall be given by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to the Deputy Commissioner, who shall cause the vacancy to be filled within sixty days of the occurrence of the vacancy as for as may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The limit of sixty days may be extended by the Deputy Commissioner if, in his opinion, there are sufficient grounds far such extension. In the present case, the vacancy for the office of Sarpanch occurred on July 3, 1986, with the removal of Shri Lal Singh, the previous Sarpanch. The election to this office could be held within 60 days thereof. The Deputy Commissioner has not extended the time for holding the elections. After the lapse of sixty days from the occurrence of the vacancy, no election for the office of Sarpanch can be held in view of the clear mandate of R.40 of the Rules. In the present case, admittedly the notice for holding the election has been given for a date beyond sixty days of the occurrence of vacancy. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a single Bench decision of this Court in Tara Chand v. State of Haryana, 1968 Cur LJ 470.