KANTILAL MATHURDAS PARIKH Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SHIVRAJPUR
LAWS(GJH)-1963-7-7
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 25,1963

KANTILAL MATHURDAS PARIKH Appellant
VERSUS
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SHIVRAJPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.SHELAT - (1.) This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ for setting aside and quashing the election held in June 1962 of the first respondent Panchayat and also for setting aside the election to the posts of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the first respondent Panchayat.
(2.) Prior to January 3 1946 the entire village of Shivrajpur including what is known as Shivrajpur mines area was notified as one village within the meaning of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act IV of 1933 by a notification dated December 28 1945 and published in the Bombay Government Gazette issued on January 3 1946 The two areas were separated and declared as two distinct villages with separate Panchayats. we are concerned in this petition with the village called Shivrajpur Village Site as distinct from the village called Shivrajpur Mines Village. The term of the first respondent Panchayat expired on June 30 1962 and therefore arrangement for a fresh election had had to be made. Consequently on May 2 1962 the Mamlatdar issued a notification fixing the programme of the various stages of the election. Under that notification the date of filing nominations of candidates was June 2 1962 the date for the scrutiny of the nominations was June 3; the final date of withdrawal of nominations was June 9; the date for the preparation of the list of accepted nominations was June 11 and the announcement of the election by beat of drums was fixed on June 22. The notification fixed the date of voting and the counting of the votes and the declaration of the result on the 28th and the 29th of June 1962 respectively. The area of the first respondent Panchayat was divided into four wards. Wards 1 2 and 3 each was allotted three seats while two seats were alloted to ward No. 4. Two seats in the first ward were reserved for women. One seat each was reserved in the second and the third wards for scheduled tribes. One seat was reserved for scheduled castes in ward No. 4. Thus in all 5 seats were reserved for women and scheduled tribes and scheduled castes out of the 11 seats allocated to the first respondent Panchayat. In the first ward respondents 4 5 15 16 and two others filed their nominations for the reserved seats for women and respondents 6 17 and three others filed their nominations for the general seats in that ward. Respondents 7 8 18 19 and three others filed their nominations for the general seat in the second ward and respondent 9 and one another filed their nominations for the reserved seat in that ward. Respondents 10 11 20 21 and four others filed their nominations for the general seat in the third ward and respondent 12 and three others filed their nominations for the reserved seat in that ward. Respondents 13 22 and two others filed their nominations for the general seat in the fourth ward and respondent 14 and one another filed their nominations for the reserved seat in that ward. Respondents 9 12 and 13 were thereafter declared elected without contest in the reserved seats in ward Nos. 2 3 and 4. Respondents 4 to 8 10 11 12 and 13 were declared elected as a result of the election. Respondents 4 to 14 were thus declared elected as members of the first respondent Panchayat. It is this election which has been challenged by the petitioners in this application.
(3.) The petitioner raised a number of contentions in their petition but when the hearing started their learned advocate Mr. B. R. Shah chose to raise only four contentions. These four contentions were 1 (a) that the election was bad as the Mamlatdar did not issue or publish a notice as distinct from the aforesaid notification though provided for by clause (2) of rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules 1959 (b) that assuming that the issuing and publication of the aforesaid notification were to be treated as issuing and publication of the notice even then the notice was bad as it was not published one month prior to the last date of filing nominations which as aforesaid was June 2 1962 2 That in the fourth ward of the first respondent Panchayat 125 persons who were the residents not of the village in question but the Shivrajpur Mines Panchayat were wrongly included in the list of voters of the fourth ward and these 125 voters having participated and voted in the election in the fourth ward the election was bad. 3 That certain houses were included wrongly in the third ward by a notification of the Collector dated April 27 1962 thereby reconstituting that ward; that the aforesaid act of the Collector was without jurisdiction. And 4 that the election was wrongly held under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act III of 1959 though certain parts of the Gujarat Village Panchayats Act VI of the 1962 were already brought in force by a notification of the State Government dated June 15 1962 published in the Government Gazette on July 25 1962 ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.