1969 (10) TMI 89 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Panchas' resignations.
2. Determination of the rightful Sarpanch at the time of resignations.
3. Legality of the Collector's order canceling the election notification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Panchas' Resignations:

The primary issue was whether the resignations submitted by ten Panchas on October 15, 1968, to Ejaz Ahmed were valid. Section 26 of the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962, stipulates that a Panch may resign by giving notice in writing to the Sarpanch, and such resignation takes effect from the date of its receipt by the Sarpanch. The court concluded that Ejaz Ahmed, who was functioning as the Up-Sarpanch at the time, was effectively acting as the Sarpanch due to the incapacitation of Champalal by the Collector's order dated September 18, 1968. Therefore, the resignations delivered to Ejaz Ahmed were valid and took effect from that date.

2. Determination of the Rightful Sarpanch at the Time of Resignations:

The court had to determine whether Champalal or Ejaz Ahmed was the rightful Sarpanch on October 15, 1968. According to the judgment, Champalal was elected Sarpanch on July 31, 1968, and his election was notified on September 2, 1968. However, Champalal was incapacitated by the Collector's order on September 18, 1968, which prevented him from functioning as Sarpanch. Section 22 of the Act clarifies that the outgoing Sarpanch continues to carry on current duties until the election of the new Sarpanch is notified. However, the court interpreted that the incapacity imposed by the Collector's order meant that Ejaz Ahmed, as Up-Sarpanch, was authorized to act as Sarpanch under Section 35(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, Ejaz Ahmed was the de facto Sarpanch on October 15, 1968, making the resignations submitted to him effective.

3. Legality of the Collector's Order Canceling the Election Notification:

The Collector had initially fixed the election program for the vacant Panchas' seats on October 14, 1969, but later canceled this order on November 4, 1969, on the grounds that the resignations were not submitted to the Sarpanch. The court found this cancellation erroneous. It was established that Champalal, due to the Collector's incapacitation order, was not functioning as Sarpanch, and Ejaz Ahmed was validly acting in that capacity. Therefore, the resignations submitted to Ejaz Ahmed were effective, and the Collector's order canceling the election program was invalid.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the Collector's order dated November 4, 1969, and directed a mandamus to be issued for the Collector to give effect to his order dated October 14, 1969, and to hold a fresh election after fixing a new program. The court also directed that each party bear its own costs, and the outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner.