SURINDER KAUR Vs. DIRECTOR PANCHAYATS, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in this writ petition relates to the election of Gram Panchayat, Terkeana, which was held on 21st/22nd September, 1983. It is the agreed position that in terms of Section 6(4) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, (in short 'the Act') at least two women Panches were to be elected to the Panchayat and there were only two contestants for these offices, i.e., Shrimati Harbhajan Kaur and the petitioner Surinder Kaur. Harbhajan Kaur admittedly secured 96 votes, whereas the petitioner only polled 64 votes. Section 6(4) of the Act referred to above, reads as follows:-

(2.) From a bare reading of the section it is patent that both the women candidates, i.e. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and Smt. Surinder Kaur petitioner were to be taken to have been elected in spite of their securing less votes than the other male candidates or duly elected members of the Gram Panchayat. But somehow the petitioner was not declared elected and instead respondent No. 5 Smt. Tirath Kaur was co-opted by the members of the Panchayat vide their resolution dated 28th October, 1983. All that has been said in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 is that as per Section 6(4) of the Act only Smt. Harbhajan Kaur could be declared or 'deemed to have been elected' and not the petitioner. No reason or basis in support of this mis-interpretation or distortion of the clear provision of the section has been either stated in the written statement or has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The legal position, so far as the interpretation of this sub-section is concerned, has been made amply clear in an earlier judgment of this Court in Smt. Gurmail Kaur v. Director of Panchayats and Community Development, Punjab and others,1979 RLR 467. In the light of that I am clearly of the view that the petitioner should have been taken to have been elected alongwith Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, these two being the only women contestants though unsuccessful. So there was no scope for any co-option and respondent No. 5 could not possibly be legally co-opted.

(3.) In the light of the above noted conclusion of mine, I declare the petitioner to have been elected to the Gram Panchayat, Terkeana and set aside the co-option of respondent No. 5. Consequently this petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.