JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election of Shri Mohan Raj respondent No. 2 as Pradhan of the Bali Panchayat Samiti under sec. 12 of of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE election of the Pradhan was held under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Pramukh and Up-Pramukh) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Election of Pradhan Rules) framed by the State Government under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 79 read with sec. 12 of the Act. The meeting for the election of Pradhan was convened by the Collector under R. 2 and was presided over by the Additional Collector Shri Abdul Jalil Qazi. In notice Ex. P. 1 the following timings were, fixed: - (1) Time for commencement of the meeting. 10.00 A. M. (2) Time for filing nomination papers....... 10.00 A.M. to 11. A.M. (3) Time for scrutiny of nomination papers. ... 11.15 A.M. (4) Time for voting, should there be a poll. ... 2.00 P.M. to 3-30 P. M. It appears from the proceedings of the meeting recorded by the Additional Collector under R. 11 that at the commencement of the meeting at 10-00 A. M. only 7 members of the Panchayat Samiti were present. The nomination paper of Shri Mohan Raj was filed at 10-35 A.M. and that of Shri Sawai Singh at 10-40 A. M. Scrutiny of the nomination papers started at 11-15 A. M. Only 4 members were present at the time of scrutiny. No objection was taken against any nomination paper and both of them were accepted after scrutiny by the presiding officer. At 11-20 A. M. Shri Sawai Sing filed an objection Ex. P. 2 stating that requisite number of members required to complete the quorum for the meeting was not present between 10-00 A. M. and 11-00 A. M. the nomination papers which were filed were invalid and praying that the meeting be adjourned without holding the election. This objection was rejected by the presiding officer on the ground that there was no specific provision in the Act or the Election of Pradhan Rules prescribing any quorum for the meeting convened to elect the Pradhan. A list containing the names of the validly nominated candidates Shri Mohan Raj and Shri Sawai Singh was published at 11-25 A. M. and a poll was held at 2-00 P. M. Forty-two valid votes were cast, 27 for Shri Mohan Raj and 15 for Shri Sawai Singh. Two ballot papers were rejected. When the counting took place 26 members were present. The present writ petition was filed on 19.1.61 challenging the validity of the election of Shri Mohan Raj as Pradhan on the ground that the nomination of candidates made at the meeting held on 12.1.61 were invalid for want of quorum and that the meeting should have been adjourned as all the members present did not agree to wait for the completion of the quorum. Reliance was placed on R. 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Conduct of Business) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct of Business Rules) which run as follows: - R.9- "Quorum for meeting. - No business shall be transacted at a meeting unless there be present at least one-third of the total number of members then on the roll of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad." R.10. "Adjournment of a meeting for want of quorum. - If, within an hour after the time appo inted for a meeting, the quorum is not present, the meeting shall stand adjourned, unless all the members present agree to wait longer." It was alleged by the petitioner who is a member of the Bali Panchayat Samiti that he also wanted to file his nomination paper and was waiting outside the meeting hall for the completion of the quorum and as the quorum was not completed within the time fixed for filing nomination papers he did not file his nomination paper. Some other grounds were also taken in the petition, but it is not necessary to mention them as they were not pressed at the hearing. The petition was contested on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the Conduct of Business Rules were not applicable to a meeting held for the election of the Pradhan and that no quorum for such a meeting was prescribed either under the Act or the Election of Pradhan Rules. "In the alternative it was argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that even if the Conduct of Business Rules are held to be applicable the only "meeting" of the Panchayat Samiti within the meaning of those rules is the one which was scheduled to be held from 2-00 P. M. to 3-30 P. M. for recording votes in case a poll became necessary. At this "meeting" all the 44 members of the Panchayat Samiti were admittedly present as all of them took part in the voting. The petition was supported on behalf of Sawai Singh respondent No. 3 who is the defeated candidate. Sec. 12(2) of the Act no doubt prescribes that the election of the Pradhan shall be held at a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. Sec. 12(1) makes provision for prescribing the manner in which the Panchayat Samiti shall elect the Pradhan. The Election of Pradhan Rules have been framed in pursuance of this provision. Before the election of the Pradhan the ex-officio members of the Panchayat Samiti namely the Sarpanchas of all Panchayats in the block coopt some members by election under sec. 11 of the Act. This election also takes place at a special meeting convened by the Collector. This meeting is governed by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Cooption of Members) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Cooption of Members Rules). The manner prescribed for the election of the Pradhan under the Election of Pradhan Rules is almost similar to that prescribed for the cooption of members under the Cooption of Members Rules except that whereas under sec. 12 of the Act relating to the election of the Pradhan or the rules framed under it there is no mention of any quorum for the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held for this purpose there is a specific mention of quorum under sec. 11 of the Act and a quorum is prescribed in the rules framed under that section. Sec. 72(4) of the Act prescribes that members shall take oath of office before taking part in the meeting held for cooption of members or for the election of the Pradhan. Voting for both is by secret ballot. In both cases, first candidates are nominated, then the nomination papers are scrutinised, the list of validly nominated candidates is published and thereafter voting takes place if a poll becomes necessary. It is not necessary for the members to sit together at one place either for filing nomination papers or when these nomination papers are being sorutinised or for casting their vostes by secret ballot. On the contrary they cannot sit together while casting their votes or else the secrecy of the voting will be violated. Although in the case of the election of the Pradhan it is debatable as to whether a quorum is prescribed there is no doubt that for the meeting of Cooption a quorum is prescribed. In Gulabchand Vs. Ganesh Narain & others (S. B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 355/59) decided on 22-12-59 a question arose as to when a special meeting for the cooption of members for which a quorum has been prescribed commences. It was held that the special meeting for which a quorum is prescribed is the one fixed for recording votes should a poll become necessary. It was observed in that case - "The nomination of candidates, the scrutiny of nomination papers, the publication of list of nominated candidates and the voting are all essential parts of the process of cooption. But it is not necessary for the members to sit together at one place either for filing nomination papers or for recording votes should it become necessary to do so. But sec. 11 of the Act contemplates that the special meeting for cooption which is convened shall only coopt members if there is a quorum. This quotum has been fixed under R. 10 at one-third of the total number of members. In order to find out whether or not the necessary quorum is there, the members must sit together at one place at sometime or the other. Now under sec. 11 the required quorum is only needed if it becomes necessary to take votes. So the members have to sit toge ther to find out whether there is or is not a quorum prescribed under the rules only when voting becomes necessary. That is they must sit together after the publication of nominated candidates R. 7 also makes it quite clear that what is referred to as the special meeting for cooption is only to be held after the publication of the list of nominated candidates." R. 7 of the Cooption of Members Rules is similar to R. 6 of the Election of Pradhan Rules. In Moolchand Jhanjhari Vs. Collector Ajmer and others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13/61) decided on 2.8.1961 one of the questions which arose for decision was as to whether a nomination paper for the cooption of members could not be accepted unless there was a quorum and whether a member could not file a nomination paper without taking oath. It was held that the special meeting for cooption refers to the third stage of the process of cooption at which votes are to be recorded should a poll become necessary and this voting could only take place if there was the necessary quorum and it was only for the purpose of taking part in the voting that it was necessary for a member to take oath of office. Exactly the same considerations arise in the case of a meeting held for the election of the Pradhan. R. 6 prescribes that before the time fixed for the meeting for election the Returning Officer shall cause to be published a list of the validly nominated candidates. That shows that the "meeting" for election is the one at which votes are to be recorded. Different dates can be fixed for the filing of the nomination papers, for their scrutiny and for recording votes. For filing nomination papers the presence of such members as do not wish to stand for election themselves or to sponsor the candidature of anyone else is not needed. R. 5 lays down that on the date appointed for the scrutiny of nominations, the candidate, his proposer and seconder may attend. That also shows that it is not contemplated that the nomination papers will be scrutinised at a meeting. As has been pointed out above it is not necessary for the members to sit together even for recording their votes. But the Act contemplates that the election shall be held at a meeting. So there must be a meeting at some stage at which members will take the oath of office in the presence of the Returning Officer. It is most proper in view of the process prescribed for the election of the Pradhan that this meeting should be held at the last stage namely that of voting when members should take the prescribed oath of office before taking part in the voting". It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that this interperation would defeat the object of the Legislature in prescribing that the election of the Pradhan shall be held at a meeting. It was said that this object was that members should have an opportunity of arriving at a unanimous choice after mutual consultation discussion and persuasion and such an opportunity is all the more necessary before the candidates are nominated. In my opinion no such intention can be gathered from the Act or the Rules. Members have ample opportunity of consulting one another before the date and time fixed for filing nomination papers. Another argument which was advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that the above interpretation would lead to an anomaly inasmuch as if there is only one candidate he would be declared elected under rule 8(1) of the Election of Pradhan Rules and in that case the election of Pradhan would take place without holding a meeting. I do not find any force in this argument. If there is only one candidate no election is necessary and consequently no meeting for holding the election is necessary. Coming now to the question as to whether any quorum is prescribed for the meeting for electing the Pradhan I have already referred to the fact that unlike sec. 11(3) relating to co-option of members sec. 12 makes no mention of any quorum. Nor do the rules framed under sec. 12 refer to any quorum. The rules framed under sec. 11 specifically prescribe a quorum. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that at the stage of co-option the Panchayat Samiti is not fully constituted and the Conduct of Business Rules would not therefore apply and so it became necessary to make a mention about quorum in sec. 11. But when however the Pradhan is elected the Panchayat Samiti is fully constituted and the argument is" that it was not necessary to prescribe any quorum specifically for the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held for electing the Pradhan as the Conduct of Business Rules would apply to it. I am unable to accept this contention. The meeting held under sec. 12 is no doubt a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, but for this meeting sec. 12(1) makes provision for making a separate set of rules. ' These Rules are the Election of Pradhan Rules. The Conduct of Business Rules have been framed under sec. 22 of the Act which runs as follows: - "Rules for the conduct of business at a meeting of a Panchayat Samiti or standing committee thereof. - Every Panchayat Samiti and a standing committee thereof shall, in regard to the conduct of business at its meetings, follow such procedure as may be prescribed." The Conduct of Business Rules are only applicable to meetings which are held for conducting business of the Panchayat Samiti other than electing the Pradhan. These meetings are presided over by the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. A meeting held to elect the Pradhan is presided over by the Collector or the Additional Collector and a separate set of rules namely the Election of Pradhan Rules have been framed to govern it. I am accordingly unable to hold that the Conduct of Business Rules are applicable to a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held under sec. 12 to elect the Pradhan. Sec. 12 of the Act or the Election of Pradhan Rules do not prescribe any quorum for such a meeting. As such no quorum is required.
(3.) I accordingly hold that the election of respondendent No. 2 as Pradhan was not invalid and dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs.;