Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Is this bunch writ petitions, the following questions arise on some of which there is no direct decision. Moreover, the same provisions have been interpreted or understood differently by different Deputy. Commissioners and different Returning Officers and similarly by the candidates and the voters. This has necessitated the interpretation of relevant law by this Court for the guidance of all concerned (1) Whether S. 5 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended in Haryana up-to-date, read with the Haryana Gram Panchyat Election Rules. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with specific reference to Rules 6 to 13, 18, 21, 23, 29 and 35 of the Rules, envisages reservation of any constituency or sent for Scheduled Caste candidate ? If not so, whether separate election is envisaged for the non-Scheduled Caste candidates meaning thereby that if in a constituency at least one seat must go to a Scheduled Caste candidate and if there is only one Scheduled Caste candidate, whether he is to join the election. i. e., the process of allotment of symbols, putting a separate ballot box for him; has to be gone through: and whether he can be declared elected unopposed without allotting a symbol and a separate ballot box for him ? Similarly, if the total Panches to be elected are five, out of whom one has to be a Scheduled Caste and there are two Scheduled Caste candidates or more, but there are four non-Scheduled Caste candidates, whether the four non-Scheduled Caste candidates can be declared elected unopposed without election or they have also to join the election process. i. e., by allotting separate symbols, separate ballot boxes etc. ?

19. Therefore, on a reading of the Act and the Rules, we hold that the law provides for minimum number of one or two Scheduled Caste Panches. as the case may be, but in case the requisite number of successful Panches include more than the requisite number of Scheduled Caste candidates then the election of such Scheduled Caste candidates will be valid.

20. This brings us to the consideration of second limb of the first question, whether separate election is any separate for Scheduled Caste candidates vis-a-vis non-Scheduled Caste candidate Section 5(2) provides that a Gram Panchayat shall consist of such number of Panches including the Sarpanch, as the Government may determine but they shall not be lass than five or more than nine. Section 5 (4) prescribes for election by a secret ballot and direct vote in the prescribed manner. The candidates who pets the highest number of votes, are to be deemed to have been elected Rule 3 provides for election programme: Rule 6 for nomination of candidates: Rule 10 for allocation of symbols to the candidates and Rule 11 for list of nominations to he posted. Rule 12 (1) prescribes that if the number of candidates who have filed valid nomination papers, is equal or less than the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall declare them elected. In case the candidates declared under sub-r. (l) of R. 12 are less than the requisite number of candidates, then under sub-r. (2) a report has to be submitted regarding the unfilled se to be filled in the manner provided under rule Act and take Rules. Rule 13 provides for election if the number of candidates is greater than the number of seats. Rule 13 provides for setting up separate ballot boxes for each candidate. Rule 21 provides for voting by ballot, It further specifically provides that every elector shall be entitled to two nontransferable ballot papers one for the office of Sarpanch and the other for the office of Panches. This provision makes it more than clear that every elector is given one ballot paper for casting in favour. of any of the candidates for, the offices of Panches. Therefore. S. 5(4) read with Rr. 10, 12, 13, 18 and 21, shows that the entire election process of Panches is one and if the nomination papers are more than the number of Panches to be elected, then the procedure of election provided under R. 10 arid rules subsequent thereto. has to be followed by allocation of separate symbols providing separate ballot boxes etc. If the law-framers had intended that election of Scheduled Caste Panches was to be held separately from the election of non-Scheduled Caste Panches, then R. 21 would have been differently worded. Therein it would have been specifically provided that for the election to the offices of Panches, every elector shall be entitled to two non-transferable ballot papers--one to be at in favour of non-Scheduled Caste Panch and the other in favour of Scheduled Caste Panch. This further strengthens the conclusion that the entire election process for the offices of Panches is an indivisible one. Moreover, as already noticed above. it is not that one or two Scheduled Caste Panches, as the case may be, are to be elected. They can be more than the requisite number also. Therefore if the total nomination papers whether of Scheduled Caste candidates or of non-Scheduled Caste candidates, are more than the requisite number of seats, then the whole election process has to be gone through. The Returning Officers, who declare one Panch or two Panches as Scheduled Caste candidates unopposed without election when one or two Scheduled Caste Panches were left in the field, as the case may be, clearly committed irregularity. Similarly, the action of the Returning Officers, who declared the remaining non-Scheduled Caste Panches as elected unopposed without going through the election process because the nomination papers of the non-Scheduled Caste candidates were not more than the seats which were considered to go to them, was also clearly illegal. According to R. 13. the total number of candidates is to be sent without allocating them to the seats for Scheduled Castes or for non-Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the second part of question No. 1 is answered to the effect that whole election is one and if the number of candidates collectively both categories is more than the resite number of seats, then whole election process has to be gone through, and while declaring the result if it is found that the requisite number of Panches who have secured highest votes including one or two Scheduled Caste Panches, as the case may be, then the sons securing highest number of votes would be declared elected. In case one or two Scheduled Caste Panches, as the case may be, do not come amongst successful candidates, then out of Scheduled Caste candidates, whosoever has secured the highest number votes would be declared elected to make up the minimum number of Scheduled Caste Panches. In case no Scheduled Caste candidate had filed nomination papers, then the requisite number of officers of Panches have to be left vacant to be filled in by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of his powers conferred on him by proviso (d) to S. 5(4) the Act.

21. Assuming that the Returning Officer committed illegality in declaring duly elected the Scheduled Caste candidates or the non-Scheduled Caste candidates unopposed without going through the process of election, as the case may be the next question which fall for consideration is whether on account of this illegality, there can be interference in election petition? Section 13-O of the Act provides for grounds for setting aside the election. A reading of that section would show that cls (a) and (b) of sub-sec, (1) thereof would not be attracted to these facts. Clause (d) thereof would so not be applicable to these facts. Miss Madhu Tewatia. Advocate, very ably argued that the facts of the present case would be akin to clause (c), namely, that an election petition would be competent if the nomination paper has been improperly rejected because such a candidate would not be allowed to participate in the election on and the same result would follow wherever the Scheduled Caste candidates were declared elected unopposed without going through the election because their non-participation in the election materially affected the result of election of the remaining candidates who were left in the field after other candidates were declared elected unopposed. In highlighting this argument, she argued that it has been fairly held by the highest Court that in case of improper rejection of nomination papers, the result of the declared candidates is affected and whole of the election has to be set aside and fresh election ordered. According to her, the same result would follow in these cases because when the Scheduled Caste candidates or the non-Scheduled Caste candidates were not allowed to join the election process and the election was held amongst the remaining candidates, how the result of election is affected by the non-participation of the candidates in the election process, who were declared elected unopposed, cannot be precisely stated or known as cannot be stated or known in the case of improper rejection of nomination papers. We find considerable merit in this contention which was put forth before us only by her out of the several counsel appearing before us in different cases. As we have already held that the entire election process is one and if the candidates who have been declared elected unopposed had also joined the process of election, the votes which would have been cart in their favour, have been cast in favour of the remaining candidates between whom the election was held. It is impossible to visualise that if the candidates, who were declared elected unopposed and who were not allowed to join the election process, had also joined the election process what would have been the result? Similar is the position in the case of improper rejection of a nomination paper. Undisputedly whenever it is held that the rejection of nomination papers was improper, the entire election is deemed to have been materially affected and is set aside and fresh election ordered. Therefore, it has to be held on the facts of the present cases that wherever some of the candidates were not made to join the election process, the result of election has been materially affected ipso facto and fresh poll could be ordered while accepting the election petition.

22. Adverting to the second question a reading of, R. 43 show 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, he will do spo: and if he is unable to do so, he may refer the 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 Rules 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 had 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 those four non-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 extent 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 rules in case there is doubt of interpret 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 S. 5(4) read with R. 35 and other allied rules, the election papers are forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner under R. 36 which art kept by the Deputy Commissioner in his custody under R. 37 until the expiry of 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 R. 43 to pass orders' on merits in individual cases and to reverse, modify or vary the election results. This could be done only. in an election petition by the prescribed Authority and by none else. Accordingly answer question No. 2 in the negative and hold that s either the Deputy Commissioner nor the State Government has power under Rule 3 of the Rules to tinker with the election results declared by the Returning Officers, wholly or partly. Hence the orders passed by the various Deputy Commissioners either declaring the elections null and void or changing the election results by declaring the defeated candidates elected and the elected candidates defeated, are clear1y illegal and in excess of their jurisdiction.