KESHO RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kesho Ram, who is one of the elected members of the Municipal Committee, Budhlada, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing State of Punjab respondent No. 1 and Sub Divisional Magistrate respondent No. 2 to convene a meeting of the elected members of the Municipal Committee for co-opting a member from the backward classes as required by Section 12-C of the Punjab Municipal Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) In an election held on June 10, 1979, 13 members of the municipal committee were elected. Section 12-A of the Act required the co-option of one member of the scheduled caste of Balmiki, Chura or Bhangi. Section 12-B of the Act required the co-option of two women if no woman was found to have been elected. So far as Section 12-C of the Act is concerned, there was to be the co-option of one member of the castes or tribes specified in Schedule II of the Act. There are as many as 68 castes mentioned in Schedule II and, according to the petitioner, none out of the elected members belongs to those castes. Rule 5 of the Punjab Municipal election Rules deals with the method of co-option of members. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of these rules a time-limit is fixed for administering the oath of allegiance to the members and thereafter for co-option. Sub-rule (2) is relevant in this case and it lays down that immediately after the oath of allegiance is administered the convener shall, after such enquiry as he may deem necessary, ascertain whether co-option as required by Sections 12-A, 12-B, or 12-C is called for or not. The rule further lays down that in case co-option is called for, then the convener shall call upon the elected members to propose the names of the candidates for co-option under Sections 12-A, 12-B, or 12-C, If any. Such proposal is required to be made separately for each category of candidate. So far as Sections 12-A and 12-C are concerned, the proposal is to be accompanied by a certificate verified by a specified authority to the effect that the candidate whose name has been proposed belongs to the scheduled caste of Balmiki, Chura or Bhangi or is a member of the classes mentioned in Schedule II of the Act. The meeting had been called by respondent No. 2 who was the convener in this case for July 13, 1979. After oath was administered to the members the meeting had to be adjourned on account of rowdyism created by some outsiders. The adjourned meeting was then held on July 17, 1979. Co-option of one member under Section 12-A of the Act and 2 women under Section 12-B of the Act took place.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition that the elected members did not include any member of the backward class and the meeting was adjourned by the convener without complying with the provisions of Section 12-C of the Act.