- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 23-7-1996 and 8-8-1996, Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri B. D. Mandhyan for the petitioner and Sri Yatindra Singh, for the respondent No. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 3 filed an election petition against him under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act on ground that his nomination was wrongly rejected, which was allowed. The revision against the said order has also been dis missed. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court. The short question in this case is as to whether the nomination of the respon dent No. 3 was wrongly rejected. Admitted ly, the respondent No. 3 was working as Accountant in a Sahkari Samiti and his nomination was rejected on that ground. Under Section 5-A (C) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, a person shall be disqualified for being chosen asand for being, a member of a Gram Panchayat, if he holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central Government or a local authority, other than a Gram Panchayat or Nyay Panchayat. The respondent No. 3 was an Accountant in a Co-operative Society and the question, therefore, is whether a Co operative Society is a local authority.
(3.) THE meaning of the expression "local. authority" has been explained by the Supreme Court in the recent decisions. In Housing Board of Haryana v. Haryana Hous ing Board Employees Union and others, AIR 1996 SC 434, it has been held that a Housing Board is not a local authority. In Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Commis sioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, JT 1996 (5) SC 510, it has been held that a State Road Transport Authority is not a local authority. In these decisions, the meaning of local authority has been explained. Thus a local authority means a body like a Municipal Board, Town Area etc. A Co operative Society cannot be said to be a local authority nor can it be said to be the State Government. Hence the nomination of the respondent No. 3 was illegally rejected. Sri Mandhyan then submitted that the result of the election cannot be said to have been materially affected by the rejec tion of the nomination of respondent No. 3. It is not possible for this Court to hold that the election was not materially effected by the rejection of the respondent's nomina tion, because it is quite possible that if the respondent's nomination has been accepted he may have won the election. Hence this contention of Sri Mandhyan cannot be ac cepted.;