GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gian Singh Sarpanch and Mangat Ram and Ishro Devi Panches of Gram Panchayat, Khajuri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Notice, dated 10.2.1977 (Annexure P.2) issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Jagadhri, respondent No. 3, for the election of a Sarpanch, and also the order, dated 31.1.1977 (Annexure P.1) issued by the Director of Panchayats, Haryana respondent No. 2.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were elected as Panches in the Panchayat election held in June 1971, and one Chamela Singh was elected as Sarpanch. Chamela Singh, however, died on 12.2.1975, about six months after the death of Krishan Chand Panch. It is stated that before its amendment by Haryana Act 3 of 1976, Section 10 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) provided that whenever a vacancy occurred by the death, resignation or removal of a Sarpanch, a new Sarpanch was to be elected in the manner prescribed by the Haryana Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the Rules), and that Rule 42(2) of the Rules provided that such a vacancy was to be filled by an election from amongst the Panches in the manner laid down in Rules 38 and 39 of the Rules. Admittedly, the Government did not fill up the vacancy of Krishan Chand by election. In paragraph 7 of the petition it is alleged that in the vacancy caused by the death of Chamela Singh Sarpanch, petitioner No. 1, namely, Gian Singh, was elected as Sarpanch on 9.4.1975 from amongst the surviving members of the Panchayat. In the meantime Section 10 of the Act was amended by Haryana Act 3 of 1976, and under the amended section the procedure for filling up the vacancy of the Panch by election was revised, and instead it was made by nomination. This amended Section 10 came into force on 11.2.1976, and after that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were nominated by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P.1 and a date was also fixed for the election of Sarpanch vide notice Annexure P.2 issued by respondent No. 3. It is against the nomination of respondents 4 and 5 vide order Annexure P.1 and the notice of election of Sarpanch, Annexure P.2, that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the amended Section 10 is not applicable to the vacancies which were in existence prior to its enforcement and so the nomination of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is illegal and void. I do not find any merit in this contention. The relevant sub-section (2) of amended Section 10 is in the following terms :-