Kanhaiyalal Tiwari vs Chief Executive Officer Janapada Sabha, Lakhnadon

P.V. Dixit, C.J.—The Petitioner Kanhaiyalal Tiwari in this case was elected as the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha, Lakhnadon, in 1954. In 1962, while holding that office, he was elected as the Sarpnnch of Khursipar Gram Panchayat. On 2nd August 1962, the Chief Executive Officer, Lakhnadon Janapada Sabha, addressed a letter to the Petitioner informing him that as he was the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha and was also elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and as he had failed to resign one of the offices within seven days of his election as the Sarpanch as required by Section 21 of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he had ceased to be the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha. By this petition, the applicant now prays that the order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapada Sabha communicated to him by the letter dated 2nd August 1962 that he was no longer the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari(sic), and that a direction be issued to the opponents prohibiting them from interfering with the discharge of his duties, powers and functions as the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha.

The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the Act imposes any bar on the holding by a person of two offices, namely, the Chairman of a Janapada Sabha and the Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, and if it does, whether the Petitioner, who was admittedly elected to the two offices, had the option of selecting which office he will continue to hold, and whether on account of his failure to exercise the option within any prescribed period, he has ceased to be the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha. The question turs(sic) on the true construction of Section 21 of the Act, which runs as follows-

(1) No person shall be chairman or deputy chairman of a Sabha if he holds such or similar office in any other local authority.

(2) No person shall be chairman, deputy chairman or councillor of a Sabha or chairman of a standing committee of a Sabha if he holds any of such offices in any other Sabha.

(3) If a person is elected or appointed to two offices, which he is prevented from holding simultaneous y under Sub-section (1) or (2), he shall -

(a) where the breach is of su-section (1), cease to hold his office in the Sabha:

(b) where the breach is of Sub-section (2), cease to hold the office in the second of such Sabha;

if, within seven days from the date of the second election or appointment, he fails to resign any of such offices.

(4) If in consequence of any breach, a question, dispute or doubt arises as to the office a person ceases to hold, the point shall be referred to the Provincial Government and its decision shall be final and conclusive.

It was argued by Shri Varma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Section 21 did not disqualify a person from holding two offices simultaneously and the bar imposed by it was operative only in regard to those cases where a person was elected as a chairman or a deputy chairman of a Sabha and as a chairman, deputy chairman of any other local authority or Sabha simultaneously or within a snort interval; and that it was not attracted to the case of the Petitioner, who was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat some eight years after his election as the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha. It was further said that the Petitioner had actually resigned the office of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat within seven days of his election to that office, and the question whether by the Petitioner''s election to the two offices there was any breach of Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 21 of the Act should have been referred to the State Government for decision.

We are unable to accept the construction sought to be put by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Section 21 of the Act. It is quite true that the first two Sub-sections do not make a person ineligible for election or appointed to any of the offices mentioned in those Sub-sections in any local authority or any Sabha if he is at the time of the election or appointment holding a similar office in another Sabha. But they do impose a bar on the simultaneous holding of the specified offices in two Sabhas or in a Sabha and in any other local authority. The bar applies, no matter whether the election or appointment to two offices is, simultaneous, or within a short interval or after a long period. This is clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 21, which says that if a person is elected or appointed to two offices, which he is prevented from holding simultaneously under Sub-section (1) or (2) then the consequences mentioned in that Sub-section would follow if the person fails to resign one of the offices within seven days from the date of his second election or appointment The contention of the Petitioner that the bar imposed by Section 71 applies only to those cases where a person is elected to two offices simultaneously or within a short in erval, does not find any support in the plain language of Section 21 and in the logic and reason behind the principle underlying Section 21 that a per son should not, at one and the same time, hold two offices. It is easy to see that Sub-section (3) would become altogether otiose if it is held that the bar imposed by Sub-sections (1) and (2) applies when the election or appointment of a person to two offices is simultaneous. So to hold would be to read Sub-sections (1) and (2) as provisions making a person ineligible for election or appointment to an office in a Sabha or any local authority while holding a similar office in another Sabha. In our judgment, the plain meaning of Section 21 is that a person cannot be the Chairman or Deputy Chairman in two Sabhas or in a Sabha and in any other local authority, and that if he is elected or appointed to these offices in two bodies then he has to resign from any one of the offices within seven days from the date of his second election or appointment.

In the present case, the truth of the Petitioner''s statement that he tendered his resignation from the office of the Sarpanch within seven days of his election to that office has been challenged by the opponents and it has been said that the Petitioner never tendered his resignation within the prescribed period. It must, therefore, be taken that the Petitioner failed to resign from the office of the Sarpanch within seven days of his election to that office. On his failure to do so, he clearly ceased to hold the office of the Chairman in the Janapada Sabha. The question whether by the Petitioner''s election as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat there was any breach of Sub-section (1) and whether he failed to resign from any one of the offices within the prescribed time as required by Sub-section (3), was in fact referred to the State Government for decision as stated in paragraph 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents. That being so, the submission that the decision that the Petitioner had ceased to hold the office of the Chairman of the Janapada Sabha is not of the competent authority must be rejected.

For all these reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs of the Respondent No. 1. Counsel''s fee is fixed at Rs. 100 The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, after deduction of costs, shall be refunded to the Petitioner.