AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Narula, J.—By notification u/s 3 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 3 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the State Government directed that there shall be constituted a Panchayat Samiti for Samana Block in Patiala District. According to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act, the Panchayat Samiti was to consist of 19 primary members out of which two members were to be representatives of the Co-operative Societies within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti, which had to be elected by the members of such societies in the manner prescribed for the purpose from amongst the members of those societies. This is the requirement of section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. It is not disputed that petitioner No. 1 is a co-operative society within the jurisdiction of the Samana Panchayat Samiti. Petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Agricultural Service Co-operative Society, Ghagga within the same jurisdiction. The said society has not filed the petition itself but Harpal Singh has joined as a petitioner in this case representing the Ghagga Society. In exercise of powers under rule 21 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis (Primary Members) Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Election Rules), the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patiala drew up an election programmed for the election of the two members required under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act. Notice was issued to the co-operative societies on May 23, 1964 under rule 22 of the Election Rules calling upon those societies to convene a meeting of the general body of their members and to send the names of representatives thus elected to the Assistant Registrar, as required by rule 22 (1) (b) of the Election Rules. It is stated that there were 145 co-operative societies within the jurisdiction of Samana Panchayat Samiti, but only 29 names were received by the Assistant Registrar within the prescribed time and, therefore, a list of 29 voters only was affixed and published as required by rule 22 (4) of the Election Rules on June 15, 1964. The First Class Magistrate cum-Returning Officer, Patiala (respondent No. 3) also received from the Assistant Registrar a copy of the list of 29 voters referred to above.
Harpal Singh petitioner No. 2 was one of these persons and was duly nominated for election under rule 23 of the Election Rules and his nomination papers were accepted. Besides the second petitioner, the other contestants in the said election were Ruldu Ram, respondent No. 4, Sukhdev Singh, Respondent No. 5 and one Dasondhi Singh. It is not disputed that though there were names of only 29 voters in the list prepared under sub-rule (4) of rule 22 of the Election Rules, the Returning Officer allowed 111 other representatives of co-operative societies, whose names were not contained in the said list, to vote in the election held on June 22, 1964. This was done in pursuance of instructions dated 3rd April, 1964 issued by Deputy Secretary Development on behalf of the Commissioner for Agricultural Production and Rural Development and Secretary to the Government Punjab in the department of Development and Panchayats. Copy.of the said instructions have been filed as annexure ''A'' to the Writ Petition. These instructions were sent in a Circular letter to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh. The purport of the direction was that a duly elected representative of a society, whose name could not reach the Assistant Registrar for one reason or the other and whose name was, therefore, not included in the list prepared under sub-rule (4) of rule 22 of the Election Rules by the Assistant Registrar and was, therefore, not included in the list published outside the polling station and supplied to the Returning Officer was also to be allowed to vote at the election, provided the Returning Officer was satisfied that such a person had, in fact, been properly elected by the society, as required by rules.
The result of the election was that though petitioner No. 2 had secured 38 votes, Ruldu respondent No. 4 had secured 42 and Sukhdev Singh respondent No. 5 had secured 41 votes.
In this Writ Petition, Mr. B.S. Bindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged only one point. He states that the instructions contained in annexure ''A'' to the Writ petition are mere executive instructions and are illegal and void as being contrary to the provisions of rule 22 sub-rule (4) of the Election Rules. Rule 21 of the Election Rules requires the preparation of the list of co-operative societies within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti to be constituted in the district. In clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 22 of the said rules, each of the co-operative societies which receives a notice from the Assistant Registrar referred to above has to send the name of the representative elected by it to the Assistant Registrar ''''on the day the election is held". Rule 22(4) enjoins on the Assistant Registrar duty to prepare a separate list of the names of the representatives of the co-operative societies in his block received by him under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 22. He is further required to paste a copy of the list outside his office and also to send a copy thereof to each Returning Officer, Rule 28(3) reads as follows:
If the number of such candidates exceeds the number of persons to be elected, an election shall be held by a secret ballot. The votes of such electors who bring with them a copy of the resolution of the Society, duly attested by the Chairman or President, as the case may be, of that Society, authorising the elector to represent the Society shall only be taken.
A reading of rule 22(4) and rule 28(3) together shows that the requirement of clause (3) to rule 28 is in addition to the necessity of the name being included in the list prepared by the Assistant Registrar under sub-rule (4) of rule 22, and a duly elected representative of the co-operative society, though equipped, with a copy of the resolution of the society duly attested by its Chairman or President to the effect that the person has been duly elected as its representative, would not be allowed to vote if his name was not sent up to the Assistant Registrar on the date on which the election of the representative of his co-operative society was held and if his name is not included in the list prepared by the Assistant Registrar under rule 22(4) of the Election Rules.
This question has already been decided in three judgments of this Court. Jindra Lal, J. in his judgment dated November 2, 1964 in Harbans Singh v. The State of Puujab C.W. No. 1346 of 1964, Civil Writ No. 1346 of 1964, held that such representatives of the co-operative societies, whose names were not included in the requisite list could not be allowed to vote. The learned Judge set aside the election on this solitary ground. Though this judgment was not noticed by Pandit J. in Puran Chand v. The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies and others C.W.N. 2056 of 1984, Civil Writ No. 2056 of 1964 decided on 9th February, 1965, the same course was adapted by the learned Judge. In a recent Judgment of P.D. Sharma, J. in Nathu Ram v. State of Punjab and others (1965) 67 P.L R. 672, the judgment of Pandit J. his been followed and the election has been set aside on the same ground.
Mr. Kaushal, 1earned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently urged that I should send up this case for reference to the larger Bench on the ground that the law has not been correctly decided in the three previous cases referred to above and, in any case, the matter needs reconsideration. The learned Deputy Advocate General has laid stress on the words "on the day, the election is held" in clause (b) of sub rule (1) of rule 22 of the Election Rules and has argued that the name has to be sent by the Assistant Registrar on the date on which the election under rule 28 is held. I am unable to agree with this contention. The election referred to in rule 22 (1) (b) is election of the representative of the co-operative society held in the meeting convened under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Election Rules.
No other point was urged before me in this case.
In view of what is stated above, I hold that the election of the members of the co-operative societies held on June 22, 1934 was vitiated on account of the Returning Officer having allowed as many as 111 persons to vote at it, who were not entitled to take part in the election. The executive instructions contained in circular letter annexure ''A'' to the Writ petition are not in accordance with the statutory Election rules and are, therefore, null and void This petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned election is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this case.