MOOLCHAND JHANJHARI Vs. COLLECTOR AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by 17 Sarpanchas who are members of the Arain Panchayat Samiti challenging the validity of the cooption of respondents Nos. 23 to 27 to the Samiti.

(2.) THE Arain Panchayat Samiti was constituted with effect from 15. 1. 61 under a notification dated September 22, 1960 under sec. 7 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 22. 12. 60. THE block for which the Panchayat "samiti was constituted consisted of 30 Panchayat Circles the Sarpanchas of which became members of the Panchayat Samiti under sec. 8 (1) of the Act. Seven members were be coopted under sec. 8 (2) of the Act. For the cooption of these members the Collector convened a special meeting under sec. 11 for 31st December 1960. Notices were issued to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in sec. 8 (1) on 19. 12. 60. THEse notices were in accordance with rule 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Cooption of Members) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). According to this notice nomination papers were to be filed on 31. 12. 60 between 8 a. m. and 10 a. m. Scrutiny of these nomination papers was to commence on the same day at 10. 30 a. m. and the vote of the members was to be taken between 2 p. m. and 4 p. m. on that day should a poll became necessary. Another notice was issued by the Collector on 29. 12. 60 in which the same programme was repeated with the addition that oath shall be administered to the members on 31. 12. 60 between 7-30 a. m. and 8 a. m.

(3.) UNDER rule 3 an election by co-option of any person to the Panchayat Samiti can be challenged on one or more of the following grounds: - (a) that such person had committed during or in respect of the election proceedings a corrupt practice as specified in rule 4; (b) that such person was declared to be elected by reason of the improper rejection or admission of one or more votes or for any other reason was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes ; or (c) that such person was disqualified for co-option under the provisions of the Act. The grounds on which the cooption of respondents Nos. 23 to 27 has been challenged in the present petition fall under clause (b) of R. 3. The process of election by cooption commences with the issue of a notice under sec. 11 of the Act. It was during this process that the Returning Officer is (alleged to have illegally prevented the petitioners from casting their votes. This Court is slow to interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 where the petitioners have an alternative remedy. The existence of an alternative remedy no doubt cannot oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but unless exceptional circumstances exist it is not the practice of this Court to interfere till the alternative remedy is exhausted.