ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order dated 18.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "1994 Act") as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh by order dated 7.6.2001 (Annexure P-4), removing the petitoner-Sarpanch from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Koor on the ground that he being a lessee on the shamlat land of the Gram Panchayat was disqualified under Section 175(m) of the 1994 Act from being or continuing as Sanrpanch.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was bad in law and was vitiated, inasmuch as the petitioner was not disqualified as the disqualification has to be seen on the date of the show cause notice. The petitioner was alleged to be a lessee which made him disqualified and the lease, if any, ceased to exist after 1.5.2000, i.e. prior to the date of the show cause notice. He refers to the corresponding provisions of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 as applicable to the State of Haryana, i.e. Section 5(1). Section 5(1) of the Act aforesaid Act reads as under :- "(5) No person who is not a member of the Sabha and who :- xxx xxx xx (1) is an tenant of lessee holding a tenancy or lease under the Gram Panchayat or is in arrears of rent of any lease to tenancy held under the Gram Panchayat, or is a contractor of the Gram Panchayat;" Learned counsel thus contends that since the corresponding provisions i.e. in Section 175(m) of 1994 Act, the language is different, the interpretation should also be different. He further contended that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner as he was not given copy of the report of the handwriting expert. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 161 in support of this contention. Counsel further argued that the issue of removal of a person on the ground of incurring disqualification was squarely covered under Section 177 of the 1994 Act and, therefore, should be taken not to be covered under Section 51(3) of the Act. The counsel also contended that the lease was valid when taken and, therefore, there could be no disqualification on that count. He also submitted that there was no remedy available to avoid removal or disqualification by surrendering the lease as is the position in the case of provisions of Section 175(1) of 1994 Act which provides for disqualification for non-payment of arrears. He also submitted that no proof was asked for from the petitioner at time of filing of his nomination. He also submitted that the allegation in the show cause notice was specific about the period.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no force in his contention. The language of Section 175 of 1994 Act is clear which provides an express bar at the threshold of being a Sarpanch as also of continuing as Sarpanch. The fact that there was a different language in previous Act, does not affect the interpretation of the present provisions. As regards, the conflict pointed out in power given under Section 51(3) and the power given under Section 177 (which is to be exercised only by the Director while in the present case the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner), I find that both the provisions in question are different. While Section 51(3) deals with the removal of the Sarpanch, Section 177 ibid provides for declaring the vacancy and the order of removal from the post of Sarpanch can validly be passed under Section 51(3) of 1994 Act. As regards the contention that the lease being valid, there could be no disqualification, I am of the view that the question of validity of the lease would not arise as the qualification are laid down separately and do not affect a formal right of contesting election as a statutory right. Merely because no provision has been made in the 1994 Act whereby the lease can be surrendered, makes no difference as under the scheme of the Act, different disqualifications are prescribed. As regards the opportunity of hearing, I do not find that the petitioner was denied the opportunity. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and he was intimated the date of hearing as fixed by the authorities below. Thereafter the matter was heard in appeal by the financial Commissioner.;