LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order may also be read in Civil Writ Petitions No. 1160 of 1995, 1177 of 1995, 1185 of 1995 1186 of 1995, 1193 of 1995, and 17772 of 1994.

(2.) IN all these writ petitions the challenge is to the election of a Member to a Gram Panchayat or to a Municipal Committee. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1160 of 1995, 1177 of 1995, 1185 of 1995 and 1193 of 1995 pertain to the election to different Gram Panchayats in State of Haryana, which were held under the provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, read with Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (in short hereinafter referred to as the 'haryana Act' and the 'haryana Rules' respectively ). Civil Writ Petition No. 17772 of 1994 pertains to election to a Gram Panchayat in the State of Punjab held under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, read with Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 and the provisions of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'punjab Act', 'punjab Rules' and 'election Commission Act' respectively ). Civil Writ Petition No. 1186 of 1995 pertains to the election to a Municipal Committee in Haryana held under the provisions of Haryana Municipal Act and the Rules made thereunder.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that in none of those cases, the question of vires of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution of India was raised or decided. The petitioners wish to challenge the vires by submitting oral arguments and in fact in C. W. P. No. 1160 of 1995, a specific application was moved to permit the challenge to the vires of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as election to the Gram Panchayat in the State of Haryana are concerned, there are no ground mentioned in the Haryana Act or the Rules on which the election of the returned candidate can be challenged. The only grounds that can be culled out from Section 176 of the Act to challenge the election of a Member of the Gram Panchayat under the Haryana Act can be corrupt practice committed by the returned candidate or the wrong counting of votes. The argument proceeded that even if a writ petitioner is to challenge the election, it can only be on the above two grounds. On all other possible grounds, the election can be challenged by way of a writ petition. It may be observed here that it is not the case of the petitioners that in all cases where a writ petition challenging the election is filed, the High Court must entertain the writ petition. On given facts and circumstances, the High Court may relegate the petitioner to his remedy under the Act but there cannot be any complete bar under the Constitution or any Act, to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.