B.R.Tuli, J. - (1.) THE election to the Gram Panchayat of village Dabwali Rahoorianwali, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepore, took place on January 2, 1964. The seats to be filled were five, one of which was reserved for a Harijan. For the Harijan seat, two nominations were filed, one by Smt. Nikko and the other by Kartar Singh for the other 4 seats there were six contestants out of which four were elected, namely, (i) Surjit Singh, (ii) Gehla Ram, (iii) Sajjan Singh and (iv) Kaur Singh balwant Singh and Shmt. Bishan Kaur (Petitioner) secured 47 and 2 votes; respectively and thus forfeited their security For the Harijan seat, both Kartar Singh and Smt. Nikko obtained four votes each and their result was to be decided by drawing lots. Instead of doing that, Smt. Nikko agreed that Kartar Singh might be declare. elected and that she withdrew from the contest. On the basis of that statement Kartar Singh was declared elected.
(2.) SINCE no woman was elected as a Panch under Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, one woman Panch had to be co -opted in the manner prescribed therein, that is, out of the women candidates for the election, the woman getting highest number of votes was to be co -opted. If no woman was a candidate, then some woman voter was to be co -opted. In this case, Bishan Kaur (Petitioner) and Nikko contested the election and they obtained two and four votes respectively. At a meeting of the Panchayat held on February 13. 1964, the Panchayat co -opted the Petitioner as the woman Panch on the ground that Smt. Nikko had withdrawn from the contest and, therefore, was considered as not having contested the election and not being a candidate at the election. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Lambi: however, wrote a letter to the Sarpanch of the Panchayat intimating that the District Development and Panchayat Officer. Ferozepore, had ordered vide letter No. 1230/DPE dated 1st May, 1964 that the Panchayat could only co -opt Shmt. Nikko and not Smt. Bishan Kaur. The Sarpanch was directed to co -opt Smt. Nikko and pass a resolution of the Panchayat to that effect within four days and send a copy thereof to his office. This letter is dated May 12, 1964. The Panchayat did not co -opt Smt. Nikko in place of Smt Bishan Kaur, as directed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, due to some procedural and technical hitches. Smt. Bishan Kaur filed the present writ petition in this Court on June 12, 1964. which came up before the learned Vacation Judge on June 17, 1964 and an injunction was issued against the Respondents restraining them from putting into effect the impugned order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer till July 21, 1964, and the writ petition was ordered to be placed before the Motion Bench for hearing on that date. The writ petition came up for motion hearing before the Bench on July 21. 1964, when it was admitted and the injunction order already issued was continued.
(3.) THE written statement has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore and by Respondent 4, the Gram Panchayat, but at the hearing only Gram Panchayat is represented by a counsel. No one has appeared for the other Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard before an order was passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer disapproving her co -option and directing the Sarpanch of the Panchayat to co -opt Smt. Nikko. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel. The Gram Panchayat had the right to co opt a woman Panch in case no woman Panch was elected. It may be that the Panchayat took a wrong view of the withdrawal of candidature of Smt. Nikko, but it was the requirement of the principles of natural justice that the person in office (the Petitioner in this case) should have been heard before she was ordered to vacate the seat in favour of Smt. Nikko. This order certainly affected the right of the Petitioner as Panch and the order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer is, therefore, vitiated as he passed the order without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner.;