VIDYA SINGH Vs. WAKIL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate for the office of Mukhiya of Bothuna Gram Panchayat in the district of Saran. He filed his nomination paper on 3rd of February, 1970; the date fixed for the purpose, before the Circle Officer Basantpur, who was appointed to discharge the functions of the Election Officer. At the time of the scrutiny, opposite party no. 1 raised an objection that the petitioner had been fined Rs. 50/ - by the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat and as he had not paid that amount, he was disqualified under Sec. 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 21 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule'). The objection was overruled and the nomination paper of the petitioner was held to be in order; by the" Circle Officer. Opposite party no. 1 then appealed to the Sub -divisional Officer, Siwan (opposite party no. 2) who was the Election Officer for the Gram Panchayat Opposite party no. 2 by his order dated 11 -2 -1970 (Annexure 5 to the petition) reversed the order of the Circle Officer and rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner. This petition challenges the aforesaid order of opposite party no. 2. A counter -affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 1. Besides challenging the other allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated therein that as opposite party no. 1 alone was left in the field, he was declared elected Mukhiya uncontested on the 11th of March, 1970, and that since after his election the remedy of the petitioner is to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal and not by a writ application.

(2.) Sec. 79 of the Act lays down the grounds on which a person can be disqualified from contesting election of a Gram Panchayat. According to Clause (k) of this section, any person who is in arrears of any tax, toll, fee or rate due from him to the Gram Panchayat for a period of three months after notice, requiring payment of such arrear, has been duly served upon him by the Gram Panchayat cannot contest the election. Rule 21 of the Rules also reiterates what is there in Sec. 79(k), but further adds that where a candidate claims that a notice requiring payment of the dues has not been served upon him, he shall be given an opportunity to pay the amount due from him and upon such payment he shall not be disqualified.

(3.) Mr. Gupteshwar Prasad appearing for the petitioner has contended that the alleged fine imposed by the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have in arrears of any dues to the Gram Panchayat. In support of this contention he has drawn my attention to Sec. 16(2) of the Act which lays down that if a person to whom a notice has been served under Sub -section (1) for improvement of sanitation fails without sufficient reason to comply with the requisition made in the notice, he shall on conviction by a Bench of the Gram Cut -cherry be liable to a fine which may extend to Rs. 50/ -. Annexure '6' to the petition is a copy of the order of the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat informing the petitioner that he had been fined Rs. 50/ - for not stopping the flow of the drain water of his house -to a well in plot nos. 294 and 296 of the village and thereby rendering the well in sanitary. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Executive Committee under Annexure '6' purported to act under Sec. 16(1) of the Act, but under Sub -section (2) of that Sec. only Gram Cutcherry could convict the petitioner and impose a fine. The Executive Committee had no jurisdiction to do it. Thus, the petitioner could not have been disqualified for not paying the fine imposed upon him by Annexure '6' by the Executive Committee.