SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAT Pal petitioner contested the election of Gram Panchayat, Tigri. The elections were held on 19. 12. 1994. Petitioner after contesting the election as a Panch, was declared elected by defeating his rival respondent No. 4 Raghbir Singh. Respondent No. 4 filed an application dated 27. 1. 1996 Under Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( for short 'the Act' ). It was prayed that petitioner should be disqualified on the ground that father of the petitioner deposited Chulla tax on 3. 12. 1994, whereas the nomination paper had been filed by the petitioner on 2. 12. 1994. It was prayed that the petitioner therefore, stood disqualified and could not remain as a Panch. The Director, Development and Panchayats (respondent No. 2) issued notice to the petitioner. In response to it petitioner submitted the reply. It was submitted by the petitioner that father of the petitioner deposited Chulla tax on 29. 11. 1994. The receipt was issued by the Sarpanch on 3. 12. 1994. The said Chulla tax pertained to the year 1994-95. Thus, the petitioner could not be termed to be a defaulter. Respondent No. 2 after hearing both the parties held that petitioner was held disqualified and could not remain as Panch in view of Section 175 (i) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State of Haryana which was dismissed.

(2.) BY virtue of the present petition, petitioner challenged the said order and further contends that the relevant provisions of Section 175 (i) are ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the house tax, if any, was not payable by the petitioner but has to be paid by his father. As referred to above, he contends that payment had earlier been made but receipt issued subsequently.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it had been urged that the sole ground on which the petitioner had been disqualified as a Panch in the Gram Panchayat is that Chulla tax had not been paid. According to him the Chulla tax had to be paid by his father. Petitioners cannot be held liable for his default. By virtue of Explanation 2 (ii) to Clause (1) of section 175 the petitioner has been disqualified. The said clause has been held to be ultra vires and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. On the contrary, the respondents contended that the petitioner had to pay the chulla tax and failure to do so earns him the disqualification contemplated Under Section 175 of the Act.