TILA SAXI Vs. AWADESH PAIKRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 23.6.94 passed by the Collector Surguja where by the election petition filed by respondent no. I challenging the election of the petitioner as a member of the Janpad Panchayat has been allowed and the petitioner's election set aside.

(2.) SHORT facts, giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as a member of Janpad Panchayat, Shankargarh from ward no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate). Respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner) submitted his nomination papers for contesting the election. The election petitioner objected to the nomination of the returned candidate on the ground that he holds office of profit in a co -operative society as also the State Government and therefore, disqualified for being a member of the Janpad Panchayat under section 36 (1) (d) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, the nomination of the returned candidate was accepted and ultimately he was declared elected from ward no, I of the Janpad Panchayat. Aggrieved by his election, the election petitioner preferred an election petition before the Collector under section 122 of the Act. According to the election petitioner the returned candidate was in service of Adim Jali Seva Sahakari Samiti, hereinafter referred to as Society, on a monthly Salary of Rs. 300/ -as Asstt. Manager and further he was a supervisor in the Adult Education Program and was getting a salary of Rs. 200/ - per month. Returned candidate contested the claim of the petitioner and according to him he was not a paid employee of the society but it has been admitted that the society used to pay him Rs. 300/ - per month as honorarium. Similarly, he has not denied the fact that he was in the service in the Adult Education programme but his stand is that he was being paid as honorarium in Propagating the adult education programme in the district. Thus his stand is that he is not holding office of profit either under the Samiti or Adult Education Programme. The Collector hearing the election petition, on analysis of the materials produced before him held that the returned candidate was appointed as propagator on a temporary basis till further orders on an honorarium of Rs. 200/ - per month and also as Asstt. Salesman by the society and was paid Rs. 300/ - per month. After holding that the returned candidate was getting profit of Rs. 500/ - per month found him disqualified for holding the office of member of Panchayat and accordingly set aside his election.

(3.) THE appointment letter of the returned candidate of the society dated 1.9.94 shows that he is an employee of the society, his appointment is purely temporary and could be terminated without any notice. As a part time salesman he was entitled for a sum of Rs. 150/ - as pay. Similarly, the appointment letter of the returned candidate dated 15.4.89 shows that he was appointed as propagator on a temporary basis till further orders on a honorarium of Rs. 200/ - per month.