Harbans Singh and another vs Sarup Chand Gupta, Additional District Judge, Faridkot and others

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

Petitioner No. 1 Harbans Singh''s election as Sarpanch and that of petitioner No. 2 Bhura Singh as Panch of Gram Panchayat Lohara, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot in an election held on 23rd August, 1978, was challenged by respondent No. 3 on the ground that since Smt. Tabo a scheduled caste woman was already elected as Panch, a second scheduled caste member of the Panchayat was not required to be coopted in terms of sub section (4) of section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and since illegally coopted member i.e. Bhura Singh had participated in electing the Sarpanch i.e. petitioner No. 1 Harbans Singh so his election as Sarpanch was vitiated. Through the very writ petition co option of Bhura Singh was also challenged.

The Prescribed Authority set aside the cooption of Bhura Singh as Panch and election of Harbans Singh petitioner as Sarpanch. An appeal at their instance to the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, also failed. This led to the filing of the present petition at their instance.

The relevant provisions of subsection (4) of section 6 deserve notice at the very threshold which reads as under :

(4) In every Gram Panchayat there shall be at least two women Panches and if only one woman or no woman is elected as a Panch and the number of unsuccessful contesting women candidates is two or more, then one woman or two women, as the case may be, securing the highest number of valid votes from amongst unsuccessful women candidates shall be deemed to have been elected as Panches :

Provided that if only one woman or no woman is deemed to have been elected then one woman or two women, as the case may be, shall be coopted by the Gram Panchayat in the prescribed manner from amongst members of the Gram Sabha qualified to be elected as Panch.

(4A) If the number of Panches of a Gram Panchayat determined under sub section (1) is less than seven and the population of scheduled castes in the Sabha area of that Gram Panchayat is five per centum or more of the population of the Sabha area it shall have one Panch belonging to the scheduled castes and if the number of Panches of a Gram Panchayat so determined is seven or more and the population of the scheduled castes in the Sabha area of such a Gram Panchayat is ten per centum or more of the population of the Sabha area then it shall have two Panches belonging to the scheduled castes.

Explanation. For the purposes of determination the number of Panches belonging to scheduled castes under this subsection the latest census report shall be taken into consideration.

(4B) If the required number of successful candidates does not include one or two Panches, as the case may be, belonging to scheduled castes, then one candidate or two candidates, as the case may be, belonging to scheduled castes, securing the higher number of valid votes from among the scheduled castes candidates shall be deemed to have been elected as the last or last two Panches :

Provided that if the requisite number of Panches belonging to scheduled castes as determined under subsection (4A) is not elected in the manner given above, the Gram Panchayat shall coopt the requisite number in the prescribed manner from amongst members of the Gram Sabha belonging to scheduled castes qualified to be elected as Panch.

(4C) As soon as may be after the election of Panches is held the prescribed authority shall call a meeting of the Panches who are elected or deemed to have been elected for the purpose of electing a Sarpanch from amongst themselves.

Perusal of subsection (4B) of section 6 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that cooption of a scheduled caste in terms of proviso to sub section (4B) aforementioned is required only if neither the required number of successful members of Panchayat included a given number of scheduled caste nor schedule caste had in required number contested the election even unsuccessfully, for once a scheduled caste had contested the election and succeeded then no question of cooption was to arise nor the question of any cooption arises when a scheduled caste had contested the election even though he had not been declared successful because in that eventuality in terms of provisions of subsection (4B) of section 6 of the Act he would be put as the last elected person after the duly elected Panches.

In the present case Smt. Tabo a woman scheduled caste had been duly elected. The point raised was that since there has to be a woman Panch also in terms of subsection (4) of section 6, so her election would be taken as an election of a woman Panch and not that of a scheduled caste Panch. There is no merit in this point and the authorities below have rightly repelled the contention for once a person satisfies the qualifications of a woman as also a scheduled caste then that candidate if elected would satisfy both the requirements of the statute and would be representing in her person a woman Panch as also a scheduled caste Panch.

For the reasons aforementioned, Bhura Singh''s cooption was rightly quashed by the Prescribed Authority and his appeal was accordingly rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

As regards petitioner No. 1 his election would have been set aside only if as a result of noncompliance with the provisions of the Act, his election was materially effected. Since petitioner No. 1 was alone in the contest and was declared elected unanimously, presence of Bhura Singh did not in any manner affect his election for there had been no voting.

For the reasons aforementioned this petition is allowed and the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority so far as the petitioner No. 1 i.e. Harbans Singh is concerned are set aside and qua Bhura Singh respondent No. 2 are maintained.