GURDEV SINGH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Gurdev Singh challenging the legality of the order dated 24th July, 1966, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, Respondent No. 1, by which he set aside the election of Capt. Nand Singh, Respondent No. 2 only and refused to declare void the election 01 Jasjit Singh and 14 others, Respondents 3 to 17, as members of Panchayat Samiti, Hoshiarpur -1.

(2.) THE Petitioner was a Panch of Gram Panchayat, Sassi Ghulam Hussain, district Hoshiarpur, and was a voter for the election of members of Panchayat Samiti, Hoshiarpur -1. This election was held on Kith June, 1965. The electoral roll for the said election was published on 29th May, 1964, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis (Primary Members) Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). There were 38 candidates for the election, out of which Respondents 2 -17 were duly elected. The Petitioner filed an election petition challenging their election on a number of grounds, but in the present writ petition we are only concerned with one of them which led to the framing of issue No. I, namely, were the electoral rolls; as in force at the time of the election, defective and invalid for the reason that some alleged electors were not allowed to vote? If so, whether they materially affected the result of the election " This election petition was tried by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, who by means of the impugned order decided this issue against the Petitioner. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 2nd of November, 1966.

(3.) THERE is no merit in this contention. In the first place, this precise argument was neither taken in the election petition filed by the Petitioner nor was this contention raised before Respondent No. 1 who tried the same. All that was stated in the election petition was that the electoral roll, on the basis of which the election had been held was bad, because neither some of the electors, who were duly entered in the electoral roll, were allowed to exercise their right, for the reason that their election had been declared void by the prescribed authority under the Act, nor the newly elected Panches and Sarpanches, after the publication of the said electoral roll, were included in the said roll and nor were they allowed any opportunity to get their names included in the electoral roll in question. Thus, it would be seen that it was not the case of the Petitioner at that time that after the notification under Section 113 -A of the Act, fresh electoral roll should have been prepared under Rule 3. Secondly, the relevant part of Rule 3 says -