Dharam Singh vs State of Punjab, etc.

M.R. Sharma, J.—In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the election of Mangal Singh, respondent No. 4 as member of the Panchayat Samiti, Dharamkot has been challenged on the ground that there were 3 Market Committees functioning within the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Dharamkot, and therefore, all the 27 members of the said Committees, instead of only 12 members thereof, who were actually residing within the area of this Panchayat Samiti, should have elected him under the provision of section 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis, and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961, which is in the following terms:--

Constitution of Panchayat Samitis.

* * *

(2) Where a Panchayat Samiti is to be constituted for a block, it shall consist of the following members:--

(a) primary members to be elected in the manner prescribed, by the persons as provided hereunder:--

(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(iii) one member representing the Market Committees in the block, by the members of such Committees from amongst the producer members residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti.

The plain meaning of the aforementioned provision is that all the members of the Market Committees functioning in the block have to elect one member who, in turn, has to be one of the producer members residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. It is not disputed that there were about 27 members of the three Market Committees functioning within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. Dharamkot, and all of them did not participate in the election of Mangal Singh, respondent No. 4. In this view of the matter the election of this respondent has to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same view was taken by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6035 of 1975, Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab etc., C.W.P. No. 6035 of 1975, decided on December 10, 1975. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice the amended Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has submitted that the petition should not be allowed at the instance of Dharam Singh petitioner because he has not suffered any substantial injury. The precise submission of the Learned Counsel is that the petitioner could not have competed with Mangal Singh, respondent No. 4 for becoming a member of the Panchayat Samiti as a representative of the Market Committees functioning within its area. That may be so but Dharam Singh petitioner has been properly elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti and this fact is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the respondents. Once it is held that the petitioner was a member of the Panchayat Samiti which has further to elect its office bearers, then it has also to be held that he would be interested in seeing that other members of the Panchayat Samiti are also elected in accordance with law so that the future election of the office bearers is not questioned. The objection raised by the Learned Counsel for the respondents is, therefore, ruled out.

For the reasons mentioned above, I allow this petition with costs to be paid by respondent No. 4, set aside the election of respondent No. 4 and hold that he would be deemed not to have been elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. However, it shall be open to the authorities concerned to re-elect a member representing the Market Committees in accordance with law, counsel''s fee Rs. 100/-.