Dewat Ram and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Daya Krishan Mahajan, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against the order of the Director of

Panchayat, Punjab, Annexure ''A'' to the petition, which is in these terms:

Whereas I am satisfied after enquiry that Shri Dewat Ram and Shrimati Chanda Bai Panches of Gram Panchayat, Narnaund, tehsil Hansi, district

Hissar, are not entitled to continue as Panches on the Gram Sabha, Narnaund, u/s 6(5) read with Section 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat

Act, 1952 (amended) as they are no longer the voters of Gram Sabha area, Narnaund, as a result of the alteration of boundaries of the Gram

Sabha Narnaund revenue estate Aurang Shahpur to which they belong, has been excluded from it.

Therefore, in exercise of the powers contained in Section 102(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, read with Punjab Government notification

No. 11508-LB-53/105558, dated the 6th May, 1954, I, D.C. Verma, Director of Panchayats, Punjab, hereby remove Shri Dewat Ram and

Shrimati Chanda Bai from the office of Panches of Gram Panchayat, Narnaund, tehsil Hansi, district Hissar, and further order them to hand over

the records, money or property of the Panchayat, if any, with them to the Sarpanch, Panchayat.

The Petitioners are Dewat Ram and Smt. Chanda Bai. Dewat Ram was elected as member of the Gram Sabha, Narnaund. The election took

place on the 22nd November, 1960. The second Petitioner, Smt. Chanda Bai, was nominated as a Panch by the elected members of the said

Gram Sabha. Both the Petitioners took oath of office on the 21st of December, 1960, and were acting as members of the Gram Sabha. The

Government, later on, bifurcated this Gram sSabha into two Sabhas. They presumably acted u/s 4(1) and 4(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act. As a

consequence of this, the impugned order by the Director was issued removing both the Petitioners from membership of the Gram Sabha of

Narnaund. This order was passed under the provisions of Section 6(5) read with Section 102(2) of the Act.

The sole contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Government has no power to bifurcate a Gram Sabha in

between the two elections; This argument is based on Section 9 of the Act which provides that the persons elected to the office of Panches and

Sarpanches of the Gram Sabha shall hold office for a period of three years. It is urged that before the period of three years expires the Petitioners

cannot be unseated unless they are disqualified under various other provisions of the Act. The Petitioners are not guilty of any act or conduct on

their part which would so disqualify them, and therefore, they cannot be non-seated by recourse to the device adopted in this case. Support is

sought to be derived for this argument from the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act which, according to the learned Counsel, merely provides for

delimitation of the constituency before the election and cannot be used after the election is held. I am, however, unable to agree with this

contention. Section 4(2) of the Act provides the answer to this contention. Section 4(2) is in these terms:

(2) Government may, by notification, include any area in or exclude any area from the Sabha area.

If the argument of the learned Counsel is correct, then Section 4(2) would become redundant because even according to him after the period of

three years when a fresh election is about to be held the Government can, acting u/s 4(1), rearrange or, to put it otherwise, delimit the constituency

afresh. Therefore, there would be no necessity at that time to act u/s 4(2). Surely Section 4(1) and Section 4(2) are not enacted for the same

purpose. Therefore if u/s 4(2) any area is excluded from the Sabha area there is no provision in the Act debarring Government from acting u/s 4(1)

in declaring that area to be Sabha area, if the other requirements of the Act are satisfied. In order to give meaning to Section 4, including Section

4(2), the only reasonable interpretation is that the Government has the power to divide the Gram Sabha area and carve out a new Sabha for the

bifurcated area provided as already said the requirements of Section 4(1) are satisfied. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, there is no injustice,

caused to him for the bifurcated area has been notified as a Sabha, area and I am told by the learned Advocate-General that elections would have

been held but for the fact that the Petitioners obtained an order of stay of the election. The Petitioners can contest the election to the new Sabha

area. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this petition. The same fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.