- (1.) SHORT but important question of law having public importance arises in this petition i,e,whether Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short `corporation') can be a local authority and a full time worker working with the Corporation incurs any disqualification under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( for short `act') or not.
(2.) UNDER the Act, `local Authority' is not defined, therefore, we have to go to the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. UNDER Section 32 (43) of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, `local Authority' is defined which is as under:- " (43) `local Authority' shall mean a municipal board, committee, corporation or council, a district board, a Zila parishad, a panchayat Samiti, a panchayat or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund. " Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act provides qualifications for election as a panch or a member. Panch includes Sarpanch. Section 19 (b) of the Act clearly provides that if a panch or Sarpanch or a member of a Panchayat holds a Salaried whole-time or part-time appointment under a local authority, then he incurs disqualification. Section 39 of the Act refers to cessation of membership subject to the provisions of Section 40 of the Act and one of the requirements is that a person is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Sec- tion 19 of the Act. Under Section 39 (2) of the Act, whenever it is made to appear to the competent authority that a member has become ineligible to continue to be a member for any of the reasons specified in Sub- Section (1), the competent authority may, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, declare him to have become so ineligible and there upon he shall have to vacate his office as member. However, it is provided that no such opportunity shall be given if such member has under Section 40, been determined by the Judge to be or to have become disqualified under Section 19. Under Section 40 of the Act, the Judge has to decide the question of disqualification. Section 40 (1) of the Act reads as under:- `sec. 40 (1) Whenever it is alleged that any member of a Panchayati Raj Institution is or has become disqualified and such member does not admit the allegation or has whenever any member is himself in doubt whether or not he is or has become disqualified for being a member, such member or the competent authority or any member of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned may apply to the District Judge having jurisdiction for a decision on the allegation or doubt. ' There is a letter dated 25. 5. 1988 (Annex. 4) addressed by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur to all the Collectors at the time of the above elections held in the State. The subject was regarding the institutions not falling in the purview of the Local Authority. There are as many as eight authorities - corporations and boards which were treated as not "local Authority". Rajasthan State Road Transport Cor- poration is one of those Corporations and Boards. However, it has been further clarified in the said letter (Annex. 4) itself that, `the employees of the aforesaid establishments/ organisations are not debarred to contest Panchayat Elections provided the Rules, governing service conditions of these institutions have not made any specific provision restricting parti- cipation in politics. '
(3.) THUS, from the above letter dated 25. 5. 1988 (Annex. 4) addressed by the Chief Electoral Officer to all the Collectors of the State, It is clear that the employees of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation were also not debarred from contesting Panchayat elections subject to the Rules or the governing service con- ditions of the corporation restricting participation in politics. Learned counsel Mr. M. S. Singhvi for the petitioner- Sarpanch has placed before me the Standing Orders, 1965 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation workers and workshop Employees which were corrected up to 31. 12. 1987. From the aforesaid Standing Order corrected upto 31. 12. 1987, it nowhere appears that there was a restriction from participating in politics. However, the learned counsel Mr. Vijay Bishnoi for the respondents has placed before me the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yamin) dated 9. 9. 1998 delivered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1061/97, Bajrang Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1), wherein at page 7, there is a reference to the circular of the corporation dated 11. 5. 88 clearly prohibiting the employees of the corporation from contesting the elections. The said circular was issued dated 11. 5. 88, therefore, obviously, it would not be there in the Standing Orders corrected upto 31. 12. 87 produced before me by the learned counsel Mr. Singhvi. In the aforesaid legal background, I will come to the facts of the case which are as under:- ;