LAWS(RAJ)-1961-4-18

BHAGIRATH Vs. COLLECTOR NAGAUR

Decided On April 19, 1961
BHAGIRATH Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR NAGAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by six elected members of the Chavandia Gram Panchayat challenging validity of the co-option of respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The application has been contested on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 has been elected as the Sarpanch and the other two respondents as Panchas of this Gram Panchayat.

(2.) THE facts as appear from the affidavits filed by the parties and from the documents produced before the Court are these. THE Chavandia Gram Panchayat was duly constituted with effect from 1. 12. 60. THE election of the Sarpanch and the Panchas was held on 30. 12. 60. THE result was declared on the same day. Respondent No. 2 Hanuman Singh was declared elected as Sarpanch and petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were declared elected as Panchas. THE elected Panchas did not include any female or any member of the Scheduled Caste. It was therefore necessary to co-opt two females and one member of the Scheduled Caste under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1960. THE population of the members of the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayat Circle not being more than 5 per cent it was not necessary to co-opt any member of that class.

(3.) TAKING the first question first, the contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the process of election in case of Panchayats commences with the issue of notification of election under Rule 14 and ends with the declaration of the result of the election under Rule 41 and that thereafter the process of co-option commences with the issue of a notification under Rule 50 and ends with the publication of the names of co-opted members under Rule 54 and that the issue of a notification under Rule 50 is not a part of the process of election, but the process of co-option commences after the issue of this notification so that any defect in the notification under Rule 50 would invalidate the co-option and the question of materially affecting the result would not arise.