BHOPALSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Bhopalsingh under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE applicant is resident of village Gothra in Tehsil Degana and is eligible to contest the election for the office of Panch and Sarpanch of Degana Tehsil panchavat. The Sarpanch and Panchas of the Tehsil Panchayats are elected under section 58 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (Act No. XXI of 1953), hereinafter called the Act. by an electoral col-lege consisting of Sarpanchas and panchas of all the Panchayats in the Tehsil. Twenty-nine Panchayats were notified for this purpose as falling within Degana tehsil whose Panchas and Sarpanchas were entitled to form an electoral college for electing the Tehsil Panchayat of Degana. The applicant wanted to stand for the Tehsil Panchayat Deeana and, therefore, looked into the list of voters who would form electoral college for the Tehsil Panchayat. He says that he then found certain defects and his contention is that in view of those defects, this Court should declare Section 5 of the Act invalid and stay election proceedings relating to degana Tehsil Panchayat till the defects are remedied and the law amended.

(3.) THE first defect, according to the applicant, is that there was no notification by the Government as required by Section 58 (1) of the Act establishing the Tehsil panchayat. The second defect which he noticed was that Section 5 of the Act, which gave power to the Chief Panchayat Officer to divide each Panchayat circle into Wards and fix the cumber of Panchas to be elected from each ward, conferred such wide and arbitrary powers on the Panchayat Officer that he was able to abuse that power in various ways in delimiting wards in the Panchayat circles of Degana tehsil. The applicant contends that this arbitrari-ness on the part of the Chief Panchayat officer in delimiting the Panchayats was so great that it amounted to denying equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and also amounted to discrimination forbidden under Article 15. He, therefore, submits that Section 5 of the Act which can permit such abuses should be struck down as violating Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution.