RAJWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are the elected Panches of Gram Panchayat Village Merhana, District Tarn Taran, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No. 6 as Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, which was conducted in the meeting of the Panches held on 25.7.2008. The said meeting was attended by four Panches, who unanimously elected respondent No. 6 as Sarpanch.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that actually no meeting had taken place on 25.7.2008, as neither the Presiding Officer nor the Secretary, Gram Panchayat came present at the fixed time and place. In support of their contention, the petitioners have relied upon the report dated 6.8.2008 given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarn Taran, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3.

(3.) IN the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, it has been stated that after the notification of the election of Panches of the Gram Panchayat, the first meeting of the Panches was convened for 17.7.2008, but the same was adjourned for want of quorum. Thereafter, the next meeting was fixed for 22.7.2008 by the Presiding Officer, but on the same day, the Presiding Officer got ill, therefore, the said meeting could not be held. Thereafter, the meeting was convened on 25.7.2008 at 1.00 P.M. Notices of the said meeting were given to all the members of the Gram Panchayat. It has been specifically stated that the Presiding Officer was very much present at the time and venue of the meeting and the meeting was attended by 4 Panches. In the said meeting, respondent No. 6 was unanimously elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It has been specifically stated that the report given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarn Taran was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran and the said report was not accepted, because the SDM gave the said report even without summoning and recording the statement of the Presiding Officer. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the said enquiry report and thereafter, election of respondent No. 6 has been notified. In the written statement, a preliminary objection has also been taken that if the petitioners are aggrieved against the election of respondent No. 6 and they seek the setting aside of the election on the ground that no meeting was held on 25.7.2008, then they have the remedy of election petition.