PADAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Padam Singh against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby he has dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash notifications under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, establishing Gram Sabhas Gumma and Bakhole as a result to trifurcation of Gram Sabha Maihasu and also elections of Respondents as Panches to these Gram Sabhas. The Petitioner came to court with the allegations, that formerly 41 villages comprised Gram Sabha Mahasu, but under notification No. 28/3/69 dated July 1,1972, under Sec. 4(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, 12 villages were excluded from the area of Gram Sabha Mahasu which were subsequently given to Gram Sabha Bakhole and 6 villages were excluded from the Gram Sabha Mahasu and were subsequently given to Gram Sabha Gumma. However, according to petition, a notification under Sec. 5(1) was neither issued nor published in the Gazette. As such, the Petitioner contended that the Gram Sabhas Bakhole and Gumma were never established. Nevertheless elections took place in the three Gram Sabhas Mahasu, Bakhole and Gumma, and Respondents 9 to 21 were elected Panches for Mahasu while Respondents 22 to 30 were elected Panches for Gumma and Respondents 31 to 39 were elected Panches for Bakhole. The Petitioner could not participate in the election as the very constitution of Gram Sabhas Bakhole and Gumma was invalid and the truncated Gram Sabha Mahasu with 23 villages could not be identified as such. The Petitioner further contended that under Sec. 9 the number of persons to be elected for Gram Panchayats was to be determined and that notification was also not published. As such, according to Petitioner, the number fixed for the three Gram Panchayats could not be legally determined. That was an additional reason why the Petitioner could not stand in the election. On these facts and allegations, the Petitioner graved for the cancellation of the order establishing Gram Sabhas Gumma and Bakhole and also prayed for the quashing of the election of these Respondents to the three Gram Panchayats. It was further prayed by the Petitioner that elections to subsequent bodies, namely Nyaya Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad, be also prohibited to be held.

(2.) The Respondents contested that proper notifications were issued under Ss. 5 and 9 and no exception can be taken in that regard. The Petitioner has no locus standi because he belonged to village Chaunri which still remains part of Gram Sabha Mahasu. He should not be held to be affected by the election of Panches for the Gram Sabhas Bakhole and Gumma. Besides this, the Respondents contended, that the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Second Validation) Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred Ordinance No. 8 of 1974) has validated the notifications under Ss. 4, 5 and 9 and no court of law can refuse to give effect to any such notification, and the Gram Sabhas should be deemed to be validly constituted.

(3.) The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition was laid, held that the exclusion of area from Gram Sabha Mahasu did not disturb the corporate character of that Gram Sabha. The Petitioner's village being already incorporated, he should have no cause of action against the elections held for the other two Gram Sabhas. The learned single Judge also held that the notification under Sec. 9 did not require to be notified or published, and hence it was a valid notification and the number of Panches was rightly determined. With these findings, the writ petition was dismissed.