DURGA RAM Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the election of the second Respondent, Dalu, and third Respondent, Parsu, as the Pradhan and Up -Pradhan respectively of the Gram Sabha, Jarol.

(2.) The Gram Sabha, Jarol, is situated in Tehsil Sundernagar in the district of Mandi. The Stete Government determined that the Executive Committee, namely, the Gram Panchayat, of that Gram Sabha should consist of 15 elected Panches. Elections to the Executive Committee were held on December 4, 1972, and 15 persons were elected. It appears that the elected candidates did not include any woman nor any member of the scheduled castes. Without anything more, on March 19, 1973, elections were held to the offices of Pradhan and Up -Pradhan of the Executive Committee, and the second Respondent, Dalu, and the third Respondent, Parsu, were elected.

(3.) The Petitioner, who is a registered voter entitled to vote in the Gram Panchayat elections, has filed this writ petition contending that the election of the second and third Respondents as Pradhan and Up -Pradhan respectively is invalid inasmuch as, when the election took place, the Executive Committee did not include a woman or schedule caste member. It is pointed out that these could have been co -opted. We are referred to the two provisos to Sec. 9(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968. The case of the Petitioner is that on its true construction Sec. 9 requires that the Executive Committee can be considered fully constituted only when it includes a woman and two members of the scheduled castes. It is urged that unless the Executive Committee was so completed it could not proceed to elect the Pradhan and Up -Pradhan. In this connection, the Petitioner has found it necessary to challenge the validity of Rule 19 -A(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971, which provides that where a co -option is found necessary under the two provisos to Sec. 9(1) of the Act a meeting shall be called for the purpose by the Pradhan or Up -Pradhan in the absence of the former. It is contended that the rule runs contrary to the true intent of Sec. 9 of the Act.