- (1.) Six Panches were elected to the Gram Panchayat Kitlana and a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened on December 11, 1971, for co-option of one lady member of the Gram Panchayat. Necessary notices were duly issued to all the elected Panches and all the six Panches presented themselves in the meeting for the purpose of co-opting the lady member. Two candidates, duly proposed and seconded, were put forth for the election. One was the petitioner and the other was respondent No. 1. When the matter came to voting, the Panches were found to be equally divided. At that stage, all of them jointly requested the convener of the meeting to spin a Coin for deciding the result of the election of a particular candidate. It so happened that the spin of the coin favoured the petitioner and she was declared to have been co-opted as a lady Panch. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition before the Prescribed Authority, who, by order dated March 19, 1974, set aside the election of the petitioner. It is this decision of the Prescribed Authority which is attacked in this petition.
(2.) The Prescribed Authority framed the following issues : (1) Whether the election of the respondent has not been properly held ? (2) Whether petitioner has the right to file the Election Petition ? (3) Whether the toss is not according to the Rules ? On issue No. 1, it was found that the election had not been properly held. On issue No. 2, it was held that respondent No. 1 had a right to file an election petition. On issue No. 3, it was held that the declaration of the result by tossing a coin was not in accordance with the rules. On these findings, the Prescribed Authority allowed the petition and set aside the election of the petitioner.
(3.) In my considered opinion, the decision given by the Prescribed Authority cannot be allowed to stand. It is often said that an election is a time-consuming process and it should not be set aside on light grounds. This principle has received statutory recognition in the form of Section 13-O of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant part of this section reads as under : "(1) If the prescribed authority is of the opinion :- (a) to (c) ... ... ... ... ... .... ... (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the elected person, has been materially affected - (i) and (ii) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (iii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules made under this Act; the prescribed authority shall set aside the election of the elected person". Obviously, a mere non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder does not have the effect of rendering an election null and void. An election petitioner has to show further that the result of the election has, in so far as it concerns the elected person, had been materially affected because of the non-compliance with the provisions of the rules. The Prescribed Authority set aside the election of the petitioner only on the ground that the proviso to sub-rule (12) of rule 5 of the Haryana Gram Panchayat (Co-option of Women Panches) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), had been violated. Even if this finding be correct, the Prescribed Authority should have diverted its attention to the important aspect whether the violation of this rule had materially affected the result of the election. On this ground alone, the decision of the Prescribed Authority deserves to be quashed.;