Vidya Sagar Jain and others vs The State of Punjab and others

Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.—This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by Vidya Sagar Jain, Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Committee, Jandiala Guru and Jarnail Singh a resident of Jandiala Guru, challenges the co-option of the two women members of the Municipal Committee respondents 5 and 6, made in the meeting of the Municipal Committee held on January, 2 1973.

The facts necessary for the decision of this petition are not seriously in dispute and are as follows. Elections to the Municipal Committee, Jandiala Guru, were held somewhere in June, 1972 and under the amended provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act introduced by Punjab Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, the Committee was required to co-opt women members in the case no such member was elected at the election. The relevant provisions of sections 12-B, 12-D and 12-E of the Ordinance are as follows :--

12-B. If no woman has been elected to a committee, the elected members of the committee shall co-opt in accordance with the provisions of section 12-D, two women who are otherwise qualified to be elected as member of such committee, and if one woman has been elected, the elected members shall co-opt one such woman.

12-D. Co-option under sections 12-A, 12-B and 12-C in the case of newly constituted committee shall be made in a meeting of the elected members held for the purpose of administering oath of allegiance to them and in case of any other committee within a period of thirty days from the date of commencement of the Punjab Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 :

Provided that whenever a vacancy occurs by death, resignation, removal or otherwise of a co-opted member the co-option shall be made within a period of thirty days from the occurrence of the vacancy.

12-E. In the event of failure to co-opt a member u/s 12-A, 12-B or 12-C, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-D the elected members of the committee shall cease to have the right of co-option of such member and thereupon the State Government may nominate a person who is eligible to be co opted u/s 12-A, 12-B or 12-C, as the case may be, to be a member of such committee.

No women members having been elected at the election, a meeting of the Committee was held on September 8, 1972, and Smt. Lajwanti and Smt. Balwant Kaur were co opted as members. This co-option was later on challenged through Civil Writ No. 3459 of 1972 in this Court, and was quashed by the order of M.R. Sharma J., dated December 1, 1972. By his order, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Amritsar was directed to hold a fresh meeting for co-option the women members. A meeting in this connection was held on January 2, 1973 on which respondents 5 and 6 were elected.

The only grievance of the petitioners in this case is that as the meeting for the co option of the women members was held more than thirty days after the vacancies had been caused by the order of this Court dated December 1, 1972, the co option was illegal and in was only the State Government which could nominate the members.

The petition was contested on behalf of the respondents and in the affidavit of Shri Tara Singh Ghuman, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Amritsar it was pointed out that originally the meeting had been called for December 23 1972 but as he had to officiate for the Deputy Commissioner who was on leave from December 22 to December 25, 1972, it had to be adjourned and was them held one January 2, 1973.

In the return filed on behalf on respondents 3, 7 and 8 through the affidavit or Swaran Dass Jain. President of the municipal Committee, Jandiala Guru it was further added that at the meeting no objection was raised by petitioner No. 1 and in fact he proposed the name of Smt. Tripta Rani who ha 1 been ultimately co-opted as a member.

From the affidavit mentioned above, it would be clear that one day''s delay in the co-option was caused by the failure of the Sub Divisional Officer to hold the meeting within time. That failure, in turn, had been the result of the absence of the Deputy Commissioner on leave and the added responsibility which the Sub Divisional Officer had to perform of these circumstances I find that it is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. Leaving this apart as petitioner No. 1 had taken part in the election as a result of which the co-opted members were added, it is not open to him to now come and challenge that the co-option was illegal. Support for this is available in the decision of the Patna High Court in Deosaran Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, wherein it is observed that if a person having knowledge of illegality election proceedings participates in it, he is precluded from challenging the validity of the election.

There as also another respect of the mailer. All the section 12 save is that in case the Committee fails to co-option member within thirty days it shall cease to have the right of co-option of such member and there after the State Governments is to nominate a person who is eligible to be co-option. In the present case, the failure to co opt Was the result of the inaction of, an Officer of the State Government, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was to contact the election, and not because of any inaction on the part of the Committee. Moreover, it is only the State Government which can take object on to this Co-option. All that section 12-E states is that if co-option is not made within thirty days the committee shall cease to have the right of co-option of such manner. From this it does not follow that if the committee makes co-option, the co-option is (sic) especially if there is no challenge by the State Government to this co-option or if the co-option is made with the consent or knowledge of the State Government, as is the situation in the present case. Such a co-option is, therefore, not open to challenge even by the other members of the committee, much Jess by members of the public.

For the reasons indicated above. I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same but leave the parties to bear their own costs.