MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN election of the Panchayat Samiti of Bholath Block in District Kapurthala took place on June 22, 1964. Mukhtiar Singh, petitioner in this petition under Articles 2211 and 227 of the Constitution, and Pritam Singh Harcharan Singh and Waryam Singh, respondents 3 to 5, filed nomination papers for election to that Panchayat Samiti A list of the names of representatives of co-operative societies in the block concerned, elected in accordance with Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Punjab Panchavat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. 1961 (Punjab Act 3 of 1961) was posted outside his office by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and a copy of the same was also sent by him to the Returning Officer pursuant to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the Punjab Panchavat Samitis (Primary Members) Election Rules. 1961, hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1961 Election Rules' The list contained 115 names of electors or voters. At the poll the Returning Officer allowed 30 more representatives of co-operative societies to vote. This he did in pursuance of Sub-rule (3) of rule 28 of the 1961 Election Rules according to which --

(2.) IT was not made clear by respondents 1 and 2, the Punjab State and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in their first return how the extra 30 votes were allowed to be cast except to say that the voters had produced the requisite resolutions according to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the 1961 Election Rules. In a subsequent affidavit filed at this stage, it has been explained that there was a supplemental list of 14 more representatives that was publicised by the Assistant Registrar as laid down in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the 1961 Election Rules. This still leaves 16 more votes for consideration A counter affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner and in that such a supplementary list with 13 names is admitted, but it is stated that with them many more were permitted to vote. So there were at least 16 representatives of the co-operative societies who produced the requisite resolutions in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 82 though their names did not appear in the list as required by Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the said Rules. The petitioner initially alleged that out of those 16 or out of 30, as he in the beginning stated in his petition, who were not shown in the first list, there were representatives of three co-operative societies who were not elected according to the rules within 20 days of the notice of election and they, therefore, could not represent their respective co-operative societies as electors for the election to the Panchayat Samiti. In the supplementary affidavit by respondent 2 it has been made clear that this it not factually true and that in the case of each one of such three co-operative societies, the election of the representatives took place within 20 days of the notice of election and in accordance with the rules

(3.) THE petitioner, though member of a co-operative society, is not representative of of co-operative society to elect members of the Panchayat Samiti So, apparently he the Panchayat Samiti So, apparently, he could not file an election petition to question the election of respondents 3 and 4 within the scope of Sec. 121 of the Act. In this petition the main ground of challenge against the election of those respondents has been that the Returning Officer has allowed 16 persons to vote at the election even though the names of those 10 persons were not in the list and were not published in the list according to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the 1961 Election Rules. The position on behalf of the respondents has been that those persons were entitled to vote according to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the same rules