SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who are 5 out of 9 Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Bambiha, Tehsil and District Bathinda, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat held on 21.7.2008, wherein respondent No. 6 Kheta Singh was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the official respondents to convene a fresh meeting of the members of Gram Panchayat for conducting the election of the Sarpanch in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the election of nine members of Gram Panchayat of the village was held on 26.5.2008. After the election, names of nine elected Panches were duly notified and oath of allegiance was administered to them. Thereafter, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda (respondent No. 3 herein) authorised Shri Rajinder Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (respondent No. 4 herein) as Presiding Officer to convene the first meeting of the newly elected members of the Gram Panchayat to conduct the election of the office of Sarpanch. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 convened the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 18.7.2008. The said meeting was attended by 5 Panches i.e. the petitioners and the remaining 4 Panches, who belong to the opposite group, remained absent. Therefore, due to lack of quorum, the said meeting was adjourned to 19.7.2008, as sub-rule (2) of Rule 45 of the Rules prescribes two-third quorum for the first meeting. However, as per sub-rule (6), no quorum is necessary for the second meeting. On 19.7.2008, due to non-availability of time to the Presiding Officer, the meeting was again adjourned to 20.7.2008. On 20.7.2008, the meeting was held at Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat, which was attended by all the 9 Panches, but the said meeting was again postponed to 21.7.2008 at 12 noon, on the ground that no time was left. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 4, the Presiding Officer, was in connivance with the minority group and on one pretext or the other, he had illegally adjourned the aforesaid meetings, in order to provide time to the other group to manipulate the requisite support. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 21.7.2008, for whole of the day, all the 5 petitioners remained present at the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat, where the meeting was to be held, but the Presiding Officer did not reach there. The petitioners made a video movie, in which Kuljeet Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat, acknowledges that the Presiding Officer did not reach at the venue to conduct the meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of election of the Sarpanch. Immediately, the petitioners moved an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. On the next morning i.e. on 22.7.2008, the petitioners made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, to conduct an enquiry. On the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda and he reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. On that, the Deputy Commissioner sent a letter to the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-11, about non- holding of the election of the Sarpanch by respondent No. 4 on 21.7.2008. The Deputy Commissioner further ordered for fresh enquiry by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda. During the course of enquiry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded statements of number of persons and submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-14. In this report also, it was found that on 20.7.2008, in spite of the fact that all the Panches attended the meeting, respondent No. 4 illegally postponed the meeting to 21.7.2008, without any justification. It has been reported that on 21.7.2008, the Presiding Officer did not come present in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat and no election was conducted. However, it has been mentioned that during the enquiry, the Presiding Officer submitted photo copies of the proceedings of the register, in which meeting of the Panchayat members was shown to be conducted on 21.7.2008 in which respondent No. 6 was elected as Sarpanch. But on that report, no action was taken.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that as a matter of fact, on 21.7.2008, the Presiding Officer did not come present at the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat and no meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat was held on that day, but subsequently, the Presiding Officer, in connivance with the minority group and the Panchayat Secretary, prepared the false proceedings of the meeting by showing that the said meeting was held on 21.7.2008 and it was attended by 6 Panches, in which respondent No. 6 was declared elected as Sarpanch. Therefore, the proceedings of alleged meeting held on 21.7.2008 are fabricated and fictitious, and are wholly illegal and void ab initio, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed in the writ jurisdiction.;