SHAKTI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed his nomination paper to contest the election of the Gram Panchayat Saloh as Pradhan. The respondent No. 5, Ranbir Singh, has also filed his nomination paper with a view to contest the election of the Pradban of the samr Panchayat. The petitioner, however, took objection to the nomination paper filed by the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the respondent no. 5 was disqualified under Section 9 (5) (f) of the Himacnal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 because he is prohibited from re employment on his dismissal from military service by virtue of the order passed by the Chief of the Army Staff on 9 5 1959 as found at Annexure PB. For this proposition the petitioner relied upon the copy of the extracts and the gazette notification issued in the matter. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4, who is the Assistant Returning Officer, was expected to scrutinise the objection raised by the petitioner against the nomination filed by respondent No. 5. These nominations were filed on 27 10 1978 and the scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be conducted on the same day. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent No. 4, the Assistant Returning Officer, however, deferred the matter of deciding the objection to the nomination of the respondent No. 5 and went to consult his superior officers who are the Deputy Commissioner Una, respondent No 2 and the Sub Divisional Officer, Una. who is respondent No. 3. It is further alleged that after having consultation with these respondents 2 and 3, respondent No. 4 returned to office accompanied by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at Government High School Saloh on 28 10 1978 at about 11 A. M. *and "on directioni which were given in the presence of the petitioner by the respondents 2 and 3 to the respondent No. 2 (No. 4 ?) the decision rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the nomination of respondent No. 5 was recorded as found at Annexure PD. This order disposing of the objections read as under :

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that thereafter he made an application to the Sub Divisional Officer, Una, respondent No. 3, making a grievance about the above order rejecting his objection against the nomination of respondent No. 5 and endorsed a copy thereof to the Deputy Commissioner Una, requesting for "similar necessary action". A copy of this application is found at annexure PF. It is dated 30 10 1978. It is said that the Deputy Commissioner., who is respondent No. 2, refused to take any action on this application with the result that the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the nomination of respondent No. 5.

(3.) THE above referred decision of this court in Ranzor Singh v. State is not inconsistent with the view which we have taken in Devi Ram Sharma v. State (C. W. P. No. 241 of 1978). In that case the question was whether dispute as regards the nomination of a Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat can be tried by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 186 or not. We have answered this question by saying that dispute relating to nomination of a Pradhan is a dispute relating to election of a Pradhan within the meaning of Section 186 and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner can decide such a dispute under Section 186.