Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Chand vs Piara Lal And Ors. on 22 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR72
ORDER J.S. Sekhon, J.
1. The election of Gram Panchayat, village Asiaki Gorawas, took place on 6th August, 1988 to elect Ranches and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat The relevant rules provided that if the elected panches do not contain one member each of the Scheduled Caste and Backward class, then a person each belonging to these caste, who has secured maximum number of votes amongst themselves, be declared elected. The Presiding Officer declared the result of the election after going through the entire election process, but while preparing the result sheets she Presiding Officer by over sight omitted to write the words 'scheduled caste' against the name of Hari Singh panch, who was also declared successful, having secured )28 votes. One of the successful candidate declared as panch was Pyare Lal plaintiff. Tara Chand, petitioner then filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, contending that the Presiding Officer has wrongly declared elected Pajre Lal as panch because no person belonging to the Scheduled Caste was declared elected and since he belongs to Scheduled Caste and had secured highest number of votes amongst the scheduled caste members, he may be declared elected as panch. The Deputy Commissioner without providing any opportunity of being heard in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 43 of the Haryana Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), altered the election results by unseating Payre Lal plaintiff and declaring Tara Chand as successful candidate Aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31st August, 1988, Payre Lal plaintiff filed a civil suit on 6th September, 1988, challenging the legality of the aforesaid order inter alia, contending that while exercising powers under Rule 43 of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner had no power to tinker with the result of election of the Gran Panchayat. On the application of Payre Lal plaintiff under the Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the trial Court also restrained Tara Chand from functioning as panch instead of Payre Lal under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Tara Chand defendant then preferred an appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide his order dated 3rd March, 1989 Feeliag aggrieved against the same, Tara Chand defendant has come up in this revision petition.
2. Mr. Nipun Mital, learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunder Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1983 P. L. J. 529 D. B. contended that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Punjab Gdam Panchayat Act as applicable to the State of Haryana. He also maintained that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 43 could only be challenged through an election petition. Reliance was also placed on another Division Bench authority of this Court in Umrao Singh and Ors. v. Mehar Chand and Ors., 1981 P. L. J. 504 D. B The decision of the Apex Court in K. K. Shrivastava etc. v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and Ors., A I. R. 1977 S. C. 1703. was also relied upon in support of the proposition that no other action is maintainable where alternative remedy is provided by way of election petition.
3. Mr. G.C. Garg, Senior Advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of Payre Lal respondent, on the other hand, relying upon the decision of Single Bench of this Court in Smt. Tejinder Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran, 1983 P. L. J. 336. besides an the decision of a Division Bench in Sunder Singh's case (supra), which was also relied upon by the teamed counsel for the petitioner, maintained that once the election process is completed and the Presiding Officer declared the result, the Deputy Commissioner should not linker with such election under Rule 43 of the Rules and only the Prescribed Authority under the Rule can do so on an election petition Thus, he maintained that the Deputy Commissioner having exercised jurisdiction not vested in him, while passing the impagned order the same could be challenged in a Civil Court. He further contended that the ratio of the decision of this Court and of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the facts of the case in hand, as therein it was held that the writ petition is not maintainable in the face of an alternative and efficacious remedy under some other provisions of the statute.
4. Rule 43 of the Rules reads as under :-
"43. Final authority for the interpretation of rules -If any question arises regarding the interpretation of these rules otherwise than in connection with an election petition which has actually been presented, it shall be referred by the person interested or the official concerned to the Deputy Commissioner for decision. The Deputy Commissioner if he thinks fit, may refer it to the State Government whose decision shall be final."
5. A bare perusal of the above said rule leaves no doubt that the Deputy Commissioner is the final authority for the interpretation of these rules, otherwise than in connection with election petition which has actually been presented. The Deputy Commissioner can either himself give the interpretation or refer the matter to the State Government. Thus, in the present case after the result of the election had been declared and become final, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to tinker with the result of a declared candidate what to say of declaring Tara Chand objector is elected as panch in place of Payre Lal plaintiff. The decision of a Single Beach of this Court in Smt. Tejinder Kaurs case (supra) can be safely referred in this regard. The ratio of the Division Beach decision in Sunder Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner also support the conclusion that the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 43 of the Rules cannot tinker with the result of the election, but can only give interpretation on the relevant rules. The Division Bench had dealt with this matter in para 11 of the judgment as under :-
"11. Adverting to the second question, a reading of Rule 43 shows that if on any rule, the Returning officer, the Presiding Officer, any of the candidates in the election, a voter or any other person concerned with the election, has any doubt about its interpretation, the matter can be referred by such interested person or the official concerned to the Deputy Commissioner, If the Deputy Commissioner is able to give his opinion, ha will do so, and if he is unable to do so, he may refer she matter to the State Government for its opinion. The facts of all the cases noticed above, show that various Returning Officers took different views of the Roles and none of them, nor any candidate or voter, sought the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner at any relevant time, and the election process was allowed to be completed and the results were declared. To illustrate, if in a given case, the Returning Officer finds that minimum one Scheduled caste candidate and to be elected and there was only one Scheduled Caste candidate who had filed the nomination papers, whether he could be declared elected unopposed without going through the election process; and if he had any doubt about it, he could seek the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner before doing so. Similarly where a Returning Officer was of the opinion that one Scheduled Caste candidate had to be elected and only four non-Scheduled Caste candidates were left in the field and if he had doubt that whether these four son -Scheduled Caste candidates could be declared elected unopposed without following the election process he could seek the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner. This rule is only to this limited exerted and the Deputy Commissioner has not been clothed with any jurisdiction to pass orders after the election process is completed under Rule 43. A very limited jurisdiction has been vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 43 to interpret the rule in case there is doubt of interpretation to any person interested or the official concerned, but not to decide or pass orders in regard to specific cases, and to modify, amend or annul the results of election already declared. After the election result is declared, in pursuance of Section 5(4) read with Rule 35 and other allied rules the election papers are forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 36 which are kept by the Deputy Commissioner in his custody under Rule 37 until the expiry of the one year from the date of election or till the conclusion of election petition, whichever is later. Even if after the declaration of the result some interested persons move the Deputy Commissioner for his opinion about the -interpretation of rules, the Deputy Commissioner could merely give his opinion and the persons concerned could take whatever action was permissible to them in law namely, to file the election petition on that basis, but the Deputy Commissioner had not been provided with jurisdiction under Rule 43 to pass order on merits in individual cases and to reverse, modify or vary the election results. This would be done only in an election petition by the Prescribed Authority and by none else. Accordingly, we answer question No. 2 in the negative and hold that neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the State Government has power under Rule 43 of the Rules to tinker with the election results declared by various . Deputy Commissioner either declaring the election null and void or changing the ejection results by declaring the defeated candidates elected and the elected candidates defeated, are clearly illegal and in excess of their jurisdiction,"
6. Mr. Nipun Mital. learned counsel for the petitioner, then laid much stress on the observations of the Division Bench in para 12 of the judgment in Sunder Singh's case (supra), wherein it was remarked that on the writ jurisdiction side the Court cannot interfere in the result of the election if the petition has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation provided for filing the writ petition. The above referred observations are of no help to the petitioner in this revision petition, as the Deputy Commissioner had upset the election of the plaintiff or. 31st August, 1988, and the plaintiff had filed the suit challenging this order or 6th September, 1988 as is apparent from the copy of the order of the trial Court, wherein at the top the date of institution of the suit so figures The period for filing the election petition is 30 days as provided under Section 13-C (l)(c) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (4 of 1953), as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is much wider than the one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus (he suit having been filed within 30 days of the impugned order, the above referred decision of the Division Bench in Sunder Singh's case (supra) is not helpful to the petitioner in the case in hand.
7. The ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in K. K. Shrivastava's case (supra) as well as of the Division Bench of the Court in Umrao Singh's case (supra) is of no help to the petitioner in this case as therein the controversy related to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 26 of the Constitution in the face of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.
8. As a matter of fact, the dispute in the case in hand though obliquely pertains to the election of the Gram Panchayat, but would not be the subject-matter of the election petition, as it does not involve any controversy regarding the election of the Gram Panchayat, which was held and completed on 6th August, 1988, but on the other hand, the cause of action arises out of an illegal order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, while exercising the jurisdiction of interpreting the Rules under Rule 43. The Deputy Commissioner was certainly not vested with the power to modify or annul the election results already declared by the Presiding Officer. A Single Bench of this Court in Nikku Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1984 P. L. J. 187 while interpreting the import of Rule 43 of the Rules, had held that this rule vests a limited jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner to interpret the rules and while so doing he cannot modify or annul the election results already declared.
9. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for interfering with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on the revision side. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.