Sat Narain vs State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch in December, 1991. Vide order dated September, 22, 1994 the Deputy Commissioner, Punipat, ordered the petitioner''s removal from office on the ground that he was an employee of a local authority. The petitioner filed an appeal on October 4, 1994. Vide order dated August 5, 1997 the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal in view of the provisions of Section 175(i)(j) read with Section 2 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the two orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The petitioner alleges that the impugned order is illegal as the Co-operative Society wherein he is serving does not fall within the definition of a local authority as contemplated u/s 2 (xxxiii). He points out that a specific averment has been made in the affidavit dated April 1, 1998 that the Society is not receiving any aid from the State Government.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by Anurag Rastogi, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Panipat. No written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he adopts the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this reply, it has not been stated that the Co-operative Society with which the petitioner is working, is being financed or aided by the Central or State Government.

When this case was listed for hearing before the Bench on August 11, 1998 a request for adjournment was made by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 to enable him to ascertain the factual position and to place it before the Court. On his request the case was adjourned to August 19, 1998. Even on that date, a request for more time was made. Consequently, the case was kept for today. Mr. Bishnoi states that in spite of specific communication, the respondents have not sent any affidavit or record which may indicate that the Society which is the petitioner''s employer was being financed or aided by the Government.

In view of the above position, the case has to be decided on the pleadings of the parties as these exist on the record.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

Section 175(i) inter alia provides that "no person shall be a Sarpanch .......... or continue as such who is servant of Government or a servant of any local authority." The expression ''Local Authority'' has been defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the Act to mean "a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Municipal Committee, Cooperative Society ........ a Board or Company or Corporation financed or aided by Central or State Government". So, it is clear that a person is not entitled to be a Sarpanch or continue as such if he is employed by a Co-operative Society which is financed or aided by the Government.

In the present case, there is no finding by any of the authorities that the Lohari Credit and Co-operative Society wherein the petitioner is serving was being financed or aided by the State Government. Not only, even in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has not been suggested that the petitioner''s employer was being aided by the State Government. Still further, in spite of the fact that no finding has been recorded by the competent authority the petitioner was called upon to file a specific affidavit. He did so. He filed an affidavit dated April 1, 1998. In this affidavit it was averred that the State Government is only "having shares worth Rs. one lakh in the Lohari Credit and Co-operative Society". It was further pointed out that the members of the Society are having shares to the tune of Rs. 4 to 5 lacs. The profit and loss is shared by the shareholders. The State Government or any other Government agency has nothing to do with the losses and profits of the Society. In spite of opportunity, nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents to indicate that the said Society was receiving any aid from the Government or was being financed in any manner.

In view of the above, we are constrained to hold that the Lohari Credit and Co-operative Society is not a local authority as contemplated u/s 2(xxxiii) of the Act. Resultantly, the disqualification as contemplated u/s 175(i)(j) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, is not attracted.

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated Sept. 22, 1994, and August 1997, copies of which have been produced on the record as Annexures P-2 and P-1 respectively, are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.