Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Chande Jayanti Bhachu vs Election Officer & Mamlatdar & 3 on 28 March, 2017

Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 1066 (GUJ.)

Bench: Harsha Devani, A.S. Supehia

               C/SCA/1575/2017                                          CAV JUDGMENT



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1575 of 2017
          
               FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:  
               HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI  Sd/­ 
               and
               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA    Sd/­ 
         ===================================================

1  Whether   Reporters   of   Local   Papers   may   be  allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2  To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

YES 3  Whether   their   Lordships   wish   to   see   the  fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4  Whether   this   case   involves   a   substantial  question   of   law   as   to   the   interpretation  of the Constitution of India or any order  NO made thereunder ?

=================================================== CHANDE JAYANTI BHACHU....Petitioner(s) Versus ELECTION OFFICER & MAMLATDAR & 3...Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance:

MR JINESH H KAPADIA,ADVOCATE for Petitioner(s) No.1­2 MR SHIRISH GOHIL, AGP for the Respondent No.1 MR HIREN M MODI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.2 MR NILESH PANDYA, ADVOCATE with MR HARESH H PATEL,  ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.3 MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.4. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI                  and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA  Date : 28/03/2017  CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) (1) The   present   writ   petition   is   directed  against   the   ex­parte   injunction   granted   on  Page 1 of 16 HC-NIC Page 1 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 17.01.2017   in   Election   Petition   No.10   of  2017   by   Principal   Civil   Judge,   Nalia,  District Kutch below Exh.5,  restraining the  petitioners   from   participating   in   the  election of Upa­sarpanch.

(2) Significant facts:

(i) The general election for the Dumra Panchayat,  Taluka   Abdasa,   District   Kutch   was   held   on  27.12.2016.   The   petitioners   contested   from  Wards   No.7   and   5   and   were   elected   as  members. After the result of the election as  per section 51 (4) of the Gujarat Panchayats  Act,   1993   (hereinafter   referred   as   "the  Act"), the first meeting was required to be  held within four weeks for electing the Upa­ sarpanch   amongst   the   elected   members. 

Respondent No.2 who was elected as Sarpanch  refused   to   preside   over   the   first   meeting.  Hence,   the  Taluka   Development   Officer  vide  order   dated   03.01.2017   nominated   respondent  No.1   as   a   Presiding   Officer   of   the   meeting  which was scheduled on 19.01.2017.

(ii) It   is   the   case   of   the   petitioners   that  respondent   No.2   filed   Election   Petition  No.10   of   2017   under   section   31   of   the   Act  beyond the period of 15 days as described in  Page 2 of 16 HC-NIC Page 2 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT section  31(1)  of the Act, only with a view  to   see   that   the   petitioners   could   not  contest and vote for the Upa­sarpanch in the  first   meeting   to   be   held   on   19.01.2015.  Along   with   the   said   election   petition,   an  application for interim injunction was filed  seeking   a   prayer   for   restraining   the  petitioners   from   participating   in   the  election   of   Upa­sarpanch   in   the   first  meeting.

(iii) On presentation of the election petition  as   well   as   the   injunction   application,   on  17.01.2017,   the   Court   passed   an   ex­parte  injunction   below   application   Exh.5   on  17.01.2017, restraining the petitioners from  participating   in   the   election   of   Upa­ sarpanch.   The   petitioners   were   served   with  the   injunction   only   at   6   O'clock   on  18.01.2017 and, therefore, on the next day,  they   gave   an   application   for   the  postponement of the election of Upa­sarpanch  to respondent No.1 as well as to the Talati  on   19.01.2017   at   around   12:30   O'clock.  However,   in   spite   of   the   objection,  respondent   No.1   proceeded   further   with   the  election.   Since   the   petitioners   could   not  remain   present   for   contesting   the   election  and   cast   their   votes   for   Upa­sarpanch,  Page 3 of 16 HC-NIC Page 3 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT respondent No.3 was elected  as uncontested.  Hence,   the   petitioners   have   filed   the  present   petition   praying   for   quashing   and  setting   aside   the   election   of   Upa­sarpanch  dated   19.01.2017   and   also   have   sought  direction   for   holding   a   fresh   meeting   for  election   of   Upa­sarpanch   for   Dumra   Village  Panchayat.

(3) Mr.Jinesh  Kapadia, learned  advocate  for the  petitioners   has   submitted   that   Principal  Judge   has   erred   in   granting   ex­parte  injunction   on   17.01.2017   restraining   the  petitioners   from   participating   in   the  election of Upa­sarpanch since the power of  granting interim  injunction is not bestowed  on   the   Principal   Civil   Judge   under   section  31(1)   of   the   Act.   He   has   also   relied   on  section   51   (5)   of   the   Act,   wherein   it   is  stated   that   if   there   has   been   failure   to  elect   a   Sarpanch   or   when   the   elected  Sarpanch is not willing to take office, the  first   meeting   of   such   village   Panchayat  shall   be   presided   over   by   such   officer   as  the competent authority may appoint. He has  stated   that   in   the   present   case   the  undisputed   fact   remains   that   respondent  No.2,   though   refused   to   preside   as   the  sarpanch in the meeting of Upa­sarpanch, she  Page 4 of 16 HC-NIC Page 4 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT attended the same as a member and Respondent  No.3 was declared elected as Upa­sarpanch as  there was no contest. He has submitted that  because   of   the   interim   order   dated  17.01.2017   the   petitioners   were   not  permitted   to   participate   in   the   meeting  dated   19.01.2017.   In   support   of   his  contentions,   he   has   relied   upon   the  judgements in the case of Sham Lal Vs. State   Election Commission, A.I.R. 1997 PH 164 and  in   the   case   of  Jagannath   Pundlik   and   Ors.   Vs. Sukhdeo Onkar Wankhede, A.I.R. 1967 Bom. 

317.

(4) Learned   advocate,   Mr.   Munshaw   appearing   on  behalf   of   respondent   No.4   authority   has  stated   that   the   then  Taluka   Development  Officer, Abdasa  Taluka Panchayat, passed  an  order   on   03.01.2017   calling   the   first  meeting   of   Dumra  Gram   Panchayat  on  19.01.2017 at 2:00 p.m.  for the  election of  Upa­sarpanch   in   accordance   with   the  provisions   of   section   51   of   the   Act.   One  Shri   K.N.Gavri   of   the   office   of   the  Mamlatdar,   Abdasa   was   appointed   as   the  Presiding  Officer in case the circumstances  laid down under section 51(5) of the Act are  necessitated.   As   per   the   record,   a   copy   of  the   agenda   was   served   upon   the   sarpanch   as  Page 5 of 16 HC-NIC Page 5 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT well   as   seven   members   on   09.01.2017.   The  first meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held  on   19.01.2017   and   it   was   attended   by   the  sarpanch and three other members of the Gram  Panchayat,   but   as   the   sarpanch   refused   to  preside   over   the   meeting   the   authorized  officer   Shri   K.N.   Gavri,   Deputy   Mamlatdar,  presided   over   the   meeting   and   the   business  was   transacted   and   one   Shri   Dharmendrasinh  Lalsinh Rathod was declared elected as Upa­ sarpanch.   No   employee   of   the   Taluka  Panchayat   was   present   in   the   meeting   dated  19.01.2017 as a representative of the Taluka  Development Officer. The Attendance Register  shows   that   accordingly   the   present  petitioners were not present in the meeting  dated 19.01.2017.

(5) Learned   advocate,   Mr.   Hiren   Modi   appearing  on   behalf   of   respondent   No.2   has   tendered  the  affidavit­in­reply  after   the   judgement  was   reserved.   The   same   is   accepted   and   is  taken   on   record.   It   is   borne   out   from   the  affidavit that respondent No.2 was in a bona   fide  belief  that  it was  not  needed  for her  to preside at the meeting since the election  petition was pending and it would be better  that Talati presides over the meeting. It is  also stated in the affidavit that she never  Page 6 of 16 HC-NIC Page 6 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT refused   to   preside   over   the   meeting   and  under   the   misguided   instructions   of   some  persons, she refused to preside in the same.

(6) Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate appearing  on behalf of respondent No.3 has stated that  the   procedure   followed   while   convening   the  meeting,   in   which   respondent   No.3   was  elected,   was   just   and   proper.   He   has  specifically stated that on the date of the  meeting, i.e. 19.01.2017 the petitioners had  not remained present and hence, the meeting  was   required   to   be   held   as   per   the   order  passed   by   the  Taluka   Development   Officer  dated 03.01.2017. He has further stated that  during   the   said   meeting,   only   one  application   for   Upa­sarpanch   i.e.   the  answering   respondent   No.3   was   given   and   as  the   four   members   were   present   out   of   seven  members, the necessary procedure under rules  7   and   8   of   the   Gujarat   Village   Panchayat  (Upa­sarpanch)   Election   Rules,   1994,   was  undertaken. He has contended that after the  meeting   was   over   and   the   procedure   was  completed,   the   petitioners   had   given  objection   application   to   the   election  officer   at   about   3:05   p.m.   Thus,   he   states  that,   as   there   was   only   one   agenda   in   the  first   meeting   to   elect   Upa­sarpanch,   the  Page 7 of 16 HC-NIC Page 7 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT meeting   was   concluded   and   the   answering  respondent No.3 was rightly declared as Upa­ sarpanch,   therefore,   the   objection  application given by the present petitioners  had   become   practically   infructuous.   He   has  further stated that the grievance voiced in  the   present   petition   can   very   well   be  agitated   in   the   election   petition   filed  before   the   Civil   Court   as   such   that   the  petitioners   have   already   appeared   in   the  said suit. 

(7) We   have   heard   the   learned   Advocates  appearing   on   behalf   the   respective   parties  at length. The documents produced on record  are also perused.

(8) The facts which are not in dispute are that  the   petitioners   won   the   election   for   the  aforesaid   wards.   After   the   result   of   the  election  as per  section  51 (4) of the Act,  the   first   meeting   was   required   to   be   held  within   four   weeks   for   electing   the   Upa­ sarpanch   amongst   the   elected   members.  Respondent No.2, who is elected as sarpanch  refused   to   preside   over   the   first   meeting.  Respondent   no.4,   i.e.  Taluka   Development  Officer, vide order dated 03.01.2017 ordered  Page 8 of 16 HC-NIC Page 8 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT respondent No.1 to preside over the meeting  scheduled   to   be   held   on   19.01.2017,   as   per  the   provision   of   section   51(5)   of   the   Act.  The   said   order   is   self­evident   that  respondent no.2 refused to preside over the  meeting as a Sarpanch. 

(9) Insofar as the main contention raised in the  petition,   regarding   absence   of   powers   of  granting   interim   injunction   by   the   Civil  Judge   in   an   election   petition   filed   under  section 31 of the Act is concerned, the same  is   no   longer  res   integra,   inasmuch   as   this  court,   by   an   order   of   even   date   made   in  Special  Civil   Applications   No.723/2017   and  1507/2017   has   for   the   detailed   reasons   set  out   therein,   held   that   the   Civil   Judge   has  no power to pass an interim injunction under  Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil  Procedure,   1908   in   an   election   petition  filed   under   section   31   of   the   Act  challenging the validity of an election. In  the   light   of   the   principles   propounded   in  the above decision, the ex­parte order dated  17.01.2017   passed   by   the   Principal   Civil  Judge   below   Exhibit   5,   being   without   any  authority   of   law   and   beyond   the   bounds   of  his jurisdiction, cannot be sustained. 

Page 9 of 16

HC-NIC Page 9 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT (10) As   narrated   in   preceding   paragraphs,   the  petitioners   were   prevented   from  participating   in   the   meeting   due   to   an   ex­ parte   injunction   granted   on   17.01.2017   in  Election Petition No.10 of 2017 by the Court  below   on   17.01.2017.   The   minutes   of   the  meeting reveal that respondent no.2 presided  over   the   meeting   as   a   member   and   not   as   a  Sarpanch.   As   a   result,   Respondent   no.3   was  appointed as Upa­Sarpanch in the absence of  participation   of   the   petitioners.   In   our  considered   opinion,   the   entire   gamut   of  holding   the   meeting   is   in   violation   of   the  provisions   of   section   51(5)   of   the   Act.  Sections   51(1),   (4)   and   (5)   of   the   Act,  which   are   relevant   for   the   present,   are  reproduced hereinbelow:

"51.   (1)   On   the   constitution   of   village   panchayat   or   on   its   reconstitution   under   section   13   or   under   any   other   provision   of   this   Act,   there   shall   be   called   the   first   meeting   thereof   for   the   election   of   Upa­ Sarpanch   from   amongst   the   members   of   the   panchayat.
(4) The   meeting   shall   be   held   on   such   day   within four weeks from the date on which the  names   of   members   elected   at   the   general   election   are   published   under   section   15   as   may be fixed by the competent authority;
Page 10 of 16

HC-NIC Page 10 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Provided   that   where   no   day   is   fixed   within   the   aforesaid   period   of   four   weeks,   the   competent authority shall report the fact to  the   State   Government   or   an   officer   or   authority authorised by the State Government   and the meeting shall be held on such day as  the State Government or the said officer or   authority as the case may be, may specify. 

(5) In the case of village panchayat, where   there has been a failure to elect a Sarpanch   or where the elected Sarpanch is not willing   to   take   office,   the   first   meeting   of   such   village panchayat  shall be presided over by  such officer as the competent  authority may   by   order   appoint   in   that   behalf.   Such   officer   shall   have   such   powers   and   follow   such   procedure   as   may   be   prescribed   but   shall not have the right to vote."

A bare reading of sub­section (5) of section  51 of the Act shows that the same envisages  two   contingencies   wherein   the   competent  authority   is   required   to   appoint   an   officer  to   preside   over   the   first   meeting   of   the  village   panchayat:   firstly,   where   there   has  been   a   failure   to   elect   a   Sarpanch;   and  secondly,   where   the   elected   Sarpanch   is   not  willing   to   take   office.   The   statute   clearly  Page 11 of 16 HC-NIC Page 11 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT does   not   envisage   a   situation   where   elected  Sarpanch after taking office, participates in  the  first  meeting  but does not preside  over  it. If the elected Sarpanch takes office, it  is incumbent upon him/her to preside over the  first   meeting.   To   put   it   differently,   once  the   elected   Sarpanch   has   taken   office,   the  competent authority is no longer empowered to  appoint an officer to preside over the first  meeting.   However,   in   a   given   case,   if   the  elected   Sarpanch   for   reasons   beyond   his/her  control  is not in a position  to participate  in the first meeting of the panchayat within  the period prescribed in the statute, it may  be permissible for the competent authority to  appoint   an   officer   to   preside   over   the  meeting. Under the circumstances, the action  of  Taluka   Development   Officer  of   appointing  Shri   K.N.   Gavri   of   the   office   of   the  Mamlatdar,  Abdasa   to   preside   over   the   first  meeting   of   the   panchayat   held   for   electing  the   Upa­Sarpanch   despite   the   fact   that   the  elected   Sarpanch   had   taken   office   and   had  participated   in   the   meeting,   is   without  authority   of   law   and   the   entire   proceedings  of   the   first   meeting,   including   election   of  the Upa­Sarpanch would stand vitiated as the  same have been conducted in violation of the  provisions of section 51(5) of the Act.

Page 12 of 16

HC-NIC Page 12 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT (11) However, it may be pertinent to note that in  the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the   elected  Sarpanch   does   not   appear   to   be   well  conversant   with   the   provisions   of   sub­ section (5) of section 51 of the Act, which  require   her   to   preside   over   the   first  meeting. In these circumstances, it was the  duty of the competent authority to bring to  the notice of the Sarpanch the provisions of  sub­section (5) of Section 51 of the Act and  provide   guidance   to   her   as   regards   the  manner in which the election of Upa­Sarpanch  is   to   be   conducted.   By   the   73rd  Amendment  Part IX "The Panchayats" came to be inserted  in   the  Constitution   of   India.   Article   243C  thereof   provides   for   the   composition   of  Panchayats.   Article   243D   provides   for  reservation   of   seats   in   Panchayats.   Clause  (2)   of   Article   243D   mandates   that   not   less  than   one­third   of   the   total   seats   reserved  under clause (1) shall be reserved for women  belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the  case   may   be,   the   Scheduled   Tribes.   Clause  (3)   of   Article   243D   provides   that   not   less  than   one­third   (including   the   number   of  seats   reserved   for   women   belonging   to   the  Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled   Tribes)  of the total number of seats to be filled by  direct election in every Panchayat shall be  Page 13 of 16 HC-NIC Page 13 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT reserved   for   women   and   such   eats   may   be  allotted   by   rotation   to   different  constituencies   in   a   Panchayat.   The   proviso  to clause (4) of Article 243D provides that  not less than one­third of the total number  of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats  at   each   level   shall   be   reserved   for   women.  Thus,   with   a   view   to   empower   women   and  encourage   their   participation   in  institutions   of   self­governance,   the   above  provisions   have   been   introduced   and  consequently,  offices of Sarpanch have been  reserved for women. If these provisions are  to   be   made   effective,   it   is   incumbent   upon  the   executive   to   ensure   that   the   newly  elected Sarpanch is provided proper guidance  as   regards   discharge   of   her   duties   and  functions as a Sarpanch. Since induction of  women in panchayats is relatively new, it is  quite   possible   that   the   new   incumbent   may  not   be   aware   of   the   provisions   of   law   and  other matters relating to the duties of the  Sarpanch   or   member   as   the   case   may.  Therefore,   with   a   view   to   furthering   the  legislative   intent,   the   officers   of   the  Government/Panchayat   are   require   to   provide  proper   assistance   to   the   elected  representatives   in   the   discharge   of   their  functions.   If   the   competent   authority   had  Page 14 of 16 HC-NIC Page 14 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT properly   advised   the   second   respondent  of  her   duties   as   Sarpanch,   the   present  situation could have been obviated. Be that  as   it   may,   apart   from   the   fact   that   the  first meeting of the panchayat for election  of   Upa­Sarpanch   has   been   held   in   violation  of   the   provisions   of   section   15(5)   of   the  Act,   even   otherwise,   as   the   petitioner   was  prevented   from   participating   in   such  election on the basis of an order which was  without jurisdiction, the proceedings of the  meeting   held   on   19.01.2017,   including  election of the Upa­Sarpanch  stand vitiated  and   are   required   to   be  quashed   and   set  aside.

(12) For   the   forgoing   reasons,   the   petitioner  succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.   The  impugned   order   granting  ex­parte   injunction  on 17.01.2017 in Election Petition No.10 of  2017   by   Principal   Civil   Judge,   Nalia,  District   Kutch,   below   Exh.5,   is   hereby  quashed   and   set   aside.   The   proceedings   of  the   meeting   held   on   19.01.2017,   including  election   of   the   Upa­Sarpanch   are   also  quashed   and   set   aside.   The   competent  authority   shall   reconvene   a   meeting   for  election of Upa­Sarpanch which shall be held  in accordance with the provisions of section  Page 15 of 16 HC-NIC Page 15 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017 C/SCA/1575/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 51(5)   of   the   Act.   Rule   is   made   absolute  accordingly, with no order as to costs.

(13) After   pronouncement   of   the   present  judgement, Mr.Haresh Patel, learned advocate  appearing  for respondent No.3, requested to  stay   the   present   judgement   for   a   period   of  four  weeks so as to enable  him to approach  higher   forum.   For   the   reasons   recorded  hereinabove in the judgement, the request is  declined.

Sd/­        [HARSHA DEVANI, J] Sd/­        [A. S. SUPEHIA, J] *** Bhavesh­[pps]* Page 16 of 16 HC-NIC Page 16 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 04:20:10 IST 2017