Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760745',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Election',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760745',
		(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Har Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 760745 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760745',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Har Sahai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 3--Notification calling upon electors ro vote in all Panchayat Samities in whole State--Dates and time fixed for elections--Held, there is no defect in notification.;It was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a)--Electoral Roll--Preparation of--Almost all electors took part in pall--10 days time between notification and date of poll--Petitioner defeated at election--Held, no prejudice is caused to petitioner and objection is after thought.;Almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raised no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioner. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case.;(c) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 - Section 12(1)(a) and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Elections of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959--Rule 15--Validity of--Provisions for preparation of electoral rolls for Legislative Assembly and that under Rules can not be equated--No procedure for disposal of objections after inviting objections--Objections to electoral roll to be disposed of by Collector or Returning Officer--No unguided powers in Collector or Returning Officer--Held, Rule 15 cannot be struck down.;The provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of votors under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. So far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.;(d) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 and Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 - Section 10(1A)&amp;(2) and Rajasthan Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules--Rules 8, 9 &amp; 12--Name of respondent in Rajasthan Assembly Electoral Roll--Collector passed order in view of Section 10(1A) and (2)--Held, Collector committed no error.;The answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order.;(e) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959--Section 12(1)(a)--Cooption could not be made for want of quorum in meeting--Existing electors elected Pradhan--Held, there was no question for waiting for coopted members and there was no illegality in election.;In the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the cooption could not take place but it does not make any illegality as far as election of Pradhan is concerned. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this ground.;(f) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1959 - Rule 15--Correction made of name wrongly declared as Panch--G &amp; D and R &amp; S coopted from quota for ladies and Scheduled Castes--Held, there is no illegality.;Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was coopted from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Sharwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-21',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.</p><p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.</p><p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:</p><p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981</p><p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981</p><p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.</p><p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.</p><p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.</p><p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-</p><p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;</p><p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.</p><p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.</p><p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.</p><p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:</p><p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.</p><p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.</p><p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.</p><p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have</p><p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-</p><p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):</p><p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and</p><p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:</p><p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.</p><p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.</p><p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.</p><p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.</p><p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.</p><p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.</p><p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.</p><p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.</p><p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.</p><p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.</p><p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.</p><p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986(2)WLN10',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Election',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760745',
	(int) 1 => 'har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760745/har-sahai-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur was declared as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(1) Date of filing nominations, Scrutiny thereof and withdrawals of candidature 25-12-1981',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(2) Date of poll 26-12-1981',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(3) Time of poll From 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. Section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) provides the provisions for election of a Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, District Jaipur, acted as Returning Officer for the election of the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. According to the petitioner though the notification published in the Gazette dated 15-12-81 fixed the dates for nomination and poll and also fixed the time there of but it did not call upon the electors of the Panchayat Samiti to elect the Pradhan as was required under Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. There is no force at all in the above objection. A perusal of Annexure 1 which is a copy of the notification dated 19th December, 1981 clearly shows that it was issued in persuance to Rule 3 of the Rules and it was issued for the purpose of calling upon the electors in all the Panchayat Samities of the whole State of Rajasthan and dates were fixed for holding the elections and the electors had to cast their votes if necessary on the date and time mentioned in the notification. There is thus no defect at all in issuing such notification and it was perfectly in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The case of the petitioner further is that the term 'electors' have been defined under Rule 2 Clause (ii) of the Rules. According to this definition 'electors' means in relation to the election of Pradhan, the members of the Panchayat Samitis specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the Collector shall cause to be prepared and authenticated list of electors for Pradhan Election in Form No. V and list of persons who are eligible to contest as Pradhan in form No. VII and furnish the same to the Returning Officer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that subject to any special or general directions of the Government, the Collector and the Returning Officer shall, if satisfied after such inquiry, as he thinks fit that any entry is erroneous or defective in any particular or that the name of any elector or person eligible to contest and vote at the elections has been left out from inclusion in such list, amend the entry or direct inclusion of the name.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. The contention of the petitioner is that except Rule 15 referred to above, there is no other rule or provision in the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act which provides for preparation of the electoral roll for the election of Pradhan Panchayat Samitis. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for preparation of a draft electoral roll or for preparation of such electoral roll or for inviting objections there to and for determining the corroctness of otherwise of the objection and for a consequent publication of final electoral roll after considering the objections. There is no provision fixing any time limit as to when and up to what time the Collector shall get the list of electors prepared. He has been left free to get it prepared up to the last moment when the poll starts and he may hand it over to the Returning Officer up to the last moment. The case of the petitioner is that to his knowledge no list of electors and no list of persons eligible for the election of Pradhan was got prepared by the Collector. It is thus contended that in view of the circumstances mentioned above neither electors nor the persons eligible to contest as Pradhan were in a position to exactly know as to who were the electors and who were the pereons eligible to contest as Pradhan. In such a situation, none of the aspirants for the office of Pradhan were in a position to-',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(a) be certain about their own candidature and be in a position to raise objections with respect to the eligibility of other persons who offered themselves as a candidate for the office of Pradhan;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(b) exactly know as to how many and who are the electors to ascertain their names, the offices they hold and other details and particulars for the purpose of canvassing in support of their candidature and to object casting of votes by persons not authorised to vote.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. It has been further submitted in this regard that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules giving the right to any person to inspect the list of electors or the list of persons eligible to contest as Pradhan prepared by the Collector. There is no provision to get a copy of such list and to raise any objection with respect to any entry contained therein. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules gives an un-briddled and arbitrary power to the Collector and the Returning Officer to include or exclude any names in the list of electors or persons eligible to contest at any time. No provision has been laid down for exclusion or inclusion of any names and no guide lines have been provided in this regard.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the elections to the office of Panchas and Sarpanchas in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81. The cooption of the Pancha took place on 11-12-81. Cooption in the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot took place only in February, 1982. Thus February, 1982 could have been the earliest time when all the electors could have come into existence. As a necessary corollary no list of voters could have been prepared before 25-12-81. It is further submitted that in the present case the date of nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal was fixed as 25-12-81 and poll was fixed on 26-12-81 from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and as such the elections in the present case were held without any voters list being available to the candidate or electors.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. Further contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981, came into operation with effect from 15-10-81 and the term of the existing Panchayats were extended upto 31st December, 1981 or till the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of Panchayat as a result of next periodical general election which ever is earlier. It has been submitted that till 31-12-81 all the previously existing Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were functioning and were in existence. The first general meeting of the newly elected members of the Panchayat were not held in any of the Panchayats in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot till the election of Pradhan on 26 12-81. The contention of the petitioner thus is that the only electors who could have been called upon to vote were the old members of Panchayats which were functioning upto 26-12-81 and not the newly elected Sarpanchas and Panchas who were elected as a result of elections held on 10-12-81. It is submitted that in fact the newly elected Panchas and Sarpanchas had voted in the present case and thus the entire election of Pradhan is invalid as voters entirely incompetent had taken part in the election of Pradhan. It is further submitted in this regard that the names of contesting candidates for the office of Pradhan could only be finalised after 5.30 pm. on 25-12-81 and the polls were to be held from 6.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on 26-12-81 the next day morning. Thus after finalisation of the names of the contesting candidates less than 14 hours were allowed to the contesting candidates to contact the electors. Admittedly the electors for the office of Pradhan are spread over in the entire Panchayat Samiti area and some of the electors who were the members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly were residing in Jaipur at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Lalsot. It was thus a ridiculous and impossible task to contact each one of the electors for discussion, deliberation or pursuading them in support of ones own candidature. It is thus submitted that the election programme issued by the State Government vide notification dated 14-12-81 was itself violative of the very norms of democratic process of election. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on the observations made in the following cases:',
	(int) 15 => '<p>Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani AIR 1967 SC 304.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>It is of the esssence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be mainatained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for adjudication of the claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elctions is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 275.The process of election starts by issuing of a notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member(s). Before such a notification can be issued, a number of preliminary steps have to be taken under the law. The law has laid down the manner in which these things are to be done. There may arise cases in which the authorities have failed to perform their functions in accordance with law in doing these things. Sometimes the transgression of law may be inexcusable and of such a serious nature that a court may be persuaded to take the view that the bedrock to hold elections is missing. In such circumstances, a citizen may, apply to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to perform these things in accordance with the law and the High Court in an appropriate case may, in its direction, issue such a writ or direction restraining the Government to hold election.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. It has thus been submitted that in the present case the very essential bedrock for holding the election was missing and invalid election for the office of Pradhan han been held in the present case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>11. In reply to the above contentions it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the electors in relation to the election of Pradhan are the members of the Panchayat Samiti, specified in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. According to this provision every Panchayat Samiti shall have',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(a) a Pradhan who shall be elected by-',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(i) the members of the Panchayat Samiti specified in Clause (i)), (ii), (iii-a) & (iv) of Sub-section (8):',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(ii) all members of the Panchayats in the block, specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. of the Rajasthan Panchayats Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1953); and',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(iii) Presidents of all the Gram Sabhas in the block:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Thus the names of all the electors were very well known on 11-12 81 itself. The election of Pradhan had taken place on 26 12-81 which was after 15 days from the date of elections as well as cooption of the Panchas in the village Panchayats. In this circumstance it cannot be said that there was no time left for preparation of electoral rolls. So far as the persons to be coopted in Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the same were coopted on 25-12-81. Only three persons were coopted and no time is taken in inserting the names of 3 persons in the electoral rolls, In these circumstances the names of persons to be included in the electoral roll were very well aware and known much before the actual date of election of office of Pradhan.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. It has been further submitted by the respondent that the first meeting of the newly elected Panchas was held on 11-12-81 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti (Extension of Term) Ordinance, 1981 itself made a mention that the existing Panchayats shall remain in force till first meeting of the Panchayat or 31-12-81 whichever is earlier. As the earlier date was the first meeting of the Panchayat which had taken place on 11-12-81 as such the newly elected members were the competent voters to cast vote for the office of Pradhan and there was no illegality of any sort committed in this regard.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in the case and have thoroughly perused the record. Elections of the Panchas and Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot were held on 10-12-81 and first meeting of the Panchayats was held on 11-12-81 in which cooption of Panchas was made as required under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as reproduced above lay down the persons who are competent to elect the Pradhan, have been provided under a statutory provision and there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity in this regard. The electors in this regard are very well known and the publication of any electoral roll is a mere formality. During the course of argument a printed list of voters numbering 483 was shown. The respondent Shri Ram Roop Mishra had secured 239 votes, the petitioner 229 votes, one Philiram 10 votes and one vote was rejected. Thus admittedly 479 votes out of 483 were cast and only 4 voters had remained absent. The above position clearly goes to show that almost all the electors were aware and had taken part in the poll. The petitioner had raisad no objection till the time of election that he was not supplied with any copy of electoral roll or that he got no opportunity to meet or canvass with any of the voters or electors. The petitioner is a defeated candidate and after having lost in the election he had taken all these pleas which are clearly after thought. It cannot be said that any prejudice of any kind what so ever was caused to the petitioners. The programme of election was notified by publication in the Gazette as early as on 15-12-1981 and the date of poll was fixed as 26-12-1981 and the electors were very well known and thus there was ample time for discussion or canvassing the electors in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that any persons wrongly voted or they were not competent voters as contemplated under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Though an objection has been raised for some individual voters, but the respondents in their reply have sufficiently explained, the position and I shall deal with such objections separately.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. In the scheme of election to the office of Pradhan, the voters are such persons who fall within the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of ths Act. Thus the provisions relating to the preparation of any electoral roll of voters under these rules cannot be equated or compared with the electoral roll prepared for elections to the Assembly or other elections. Thus in my view the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules cannot be struck down merely on the ground that it does not lay down any procedure for preparation of draft poll or for inviting objections or manner in which such objections are to be disposed of by the Collector, or the Returning Officer. The Collector or the Returning Officer has no independent authority and there is no question of any unbridled or unguided powers given to them in the preparation of the electoral roll, as they have to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. That apart as already held by me above, so far as the petitioner in the present case is concerned he has not been prejudiced at all and is estopped from his own conduct as he took part in the election and has raised all these objections only after having been defeated in the election.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. Now so far as the persons who may be eligible to be elected as Pradhan is concerned, it has been provided in proviso one to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, that he should be a voter of any Panchayat or a member of any Gram Sabha established under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1960, a resident of the block and able to read and write Hindi. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides as to the persons who may have aright to vote in a Panchayat. According to the above provision for each of the wards into which a Panchayat circle is divided under Section 5 of the Panchayat Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or in the supervision of Collector or such subordinate officer of State Government as the Collector may authorise in this behalf a list of the voters thereof. It further provides that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat circle or a ward thereof or whose name is entered in such roll, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of such Panchayat circle or ward, as the case may be. Provided that no such person shall be entitled to be so registered more than once or in more than one ward of the same Panchayat circle.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>16. In the present case the objection has been raised by the petitioner that Shri Ram Roop Mishra respondent No. 5 is a practising advocate and is permanently residing at Dausa, Even in the recent Municipal election, his name has been shown in the voters list of Dausa Municipality at No. 104 in ward No. 13 Part I. His name was also shown in the Assembly electoral roll for Dausa Assembly Constituency for the year 1980. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 5 had moved an application under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (here in after referred to as the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules) for inclusion of his name in the voters list of ward No. 8 of village Mundia, Grams Panchayat Shrima, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot on 2-11-1981 before the electoral Registration Officer. The prescribed Officer, i.e., the S.D.O. Dausa obtained a report on his application and the Girdavar reported that he did not reside in village Mundia. The Tehsildar replied to the prescribed Officer accordingly and the prescribed officer rejected the request of the respondent No. 5 for inclusion of his name. Annexure 2 a copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 along with the orders passed on it has been submitted in support of the above contention. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 filed a revision/appeal on 18-12-1981 against the order of the prescribed officer before the Addl. Collector, Jaipur which was registered as revision No. 19 of 1981. The Additional Collector on 18-12-1981 ordered for calling of the record of the case from the S.D.O. Dausa and also directed the S.D.O. Dausa to examine him. The Additional Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to produce those persons who had filed affidavits in support of his claim as witnesses and 21-12-1981 was fixed in the matter. However, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawing his revision and did not present himself before the Additional Collector, Jaipur on 21-12-1981. The Additional Collector in this circumstance dismissed the revision filed by the respondent. Annexures 3, 4 & 5 have been filed in support of the above contention. The case of the petitioner however, is that thereafter the respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Collector, Jaipur on 22-12-981 for inclusion of his name in the voters list and ward No. 8 of village Mundia, and the Collector obliged him by passing an order in his favour on 22-12-1981 itself without holding any inquiry and without taking note of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Collector. The respondent No. 5 was a Congress (I) candidate for the office of Pradhan and the Collector Jaipur passed an order dated 22-12-1981 under political pressure. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Collector Jaipur is illegal and invalid and should be set aside. As consequent of the above contention it has been submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not a person resident of any Gram Panchayat falling within the area of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and as such he was not eligible to contest the election of Pradhan.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>17. The respondent in his reply has submitted that the respondent No. 5 is permanently residing in village Mundia. His name had been entered in the voters list of Assembly election held in the year 1980. However, the name of the answering respondent disappeared in the voters list of the election of Panchayats held in the year 1981 against which he filed an appeal before the S.D.O but the same was wrongly rejected. The answering respondent then filed an appeal/revision in the court of A.D.M. on 18-12-1981, on which date he ordered for calling the record of the S.D.O. When the order for calling of record was passed on 18-12-1981, the answering respondent thought it proper to withdraw the appeal/revision itself because the election of Pradhan was going to be held on 26-12-1981 and the last date for filing the nomination was 25-12-1981 and by this time the record of the court of S.D.O. could not have reached in the court of A.D.M. In this circumstance the answering respondent withdraw his appeal/revision from the court of A.D.M. Thereafter on 18-12-1981 itself the answering respondent submitted an application under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules before the Collector who issued a notice of 3 days as required under the rules and thereafter on 22-12-1981, the learned Collector passed an order for including the name of the answering respondent in the voters list of village Mundia. The Collector did not oblige by making an order in favour of the respondent, but it was his duty to dispose of the application filed by the answering respondent and to include his name in the voters list. The order thus passed by the Collector on 22-12-1981 is legal and valid and has not been passed under any political pressure.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>18. A perusal of the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 22-12-1981 shows that the answering respondent had filed the voters list of Lalsot Assembly Constituency in which the name of the answering respondent was shown at serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia. The Collector placed reliance on the aforesaid list and observed that according to Section 10(1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, it was incumbent to include the name of such person in the electoral list of the Gram Panchayat, whose name may have appeared in the Assembly list. It has also been observed in the above order that a notice had been issued inviting objections but, nobody submitted any objections and as such it was ordered to include the name of answering resnon-dent in ward No. 8 of village Mundia. As the Collector had passed the above order by taking note of Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 10 of the Rajas-than Panchayat Act, according to which the electoral list of the Panchayat was to confirm to the latest electoral roll of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly relatable to the area comprised in such ward it cannot be said that the Collector committed an error in passing the impugned order. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule 12 of the Nyaya Panchayat Elections Rules is independent of the powers given to the Addl. Collector under Rules 8 & 9 of such Rules. It is not disputed even by the petitioners counsel that the name of respondent No. 5 was not included serial number 579 part 71 of village Mundia of Lalsot Legislative Assembly Constituency. Thus I find no force in this objection raised by the petitioner.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that for election of Pradhan to be held on 26-12-1981, a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot was held on 25-12-1981 for co-opting its members. As quorum of the meeting was not complete as such no co-option could be held and thus 3 seats in the Panchayat Samiti remained vacant. It has also been submitted that when the polling took place, one Shri Sahai of Gram Panchayat, Maharia voted as one of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Maharia. In fact Shri Ramshai was not elected as Panch but Shri Bajrang Lal was elected as Panch, in absence of the voters list, the petitioner could not raise any objection. Again another Bajrang Lal voted as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bilon Kalan though infact Bajrang Lal was not elected as Panch but Nanag Ram had been elected. It has been further submitted that one Shri Narain voted as Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandawari instead of the elected Panch Narain. It has also been submitted that in Gram Panchayat Rajoli, two persons from Schedule Casts were co-opted namely, Ganga and Ram Karan. From Scheduled Castes, two persons could not have been co-opted. Similarly, in Shyampur Kalan, Dhapu and Sharwan two persons of the Scheduled Castes had been co-opted whereas only one could have been coopted. Again in Gram Panchayat Toda Thekla, Dhonkla, was co-opted as the member of Scheduled Tribes. The total population of the Scheduled Castes in this Panchayat is not more than 5% and therefore, no person from the Scheduled Tribes could have been coopted. All the above 5 persons have wrongly taken part in voting though 3 voters of them could not have been become lawfully electors and the petitioner was not able to raise any objection as no voters list was supplied.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>20. The respondent in reply have submitted that in the meeting dated 25-12-1981 the quorum of the meeting was incomplete and as such the co-option could not take place but it does not make any illegality so far as election of Pradhan is concerned. In my view the contention of the respondent in this regard is correct. If the cooption had not taken place due to want of quorum there was no question of waiting for the coopted members. It is only those members who were existing on 25-12-1981 have taken part in the poll on 26-12-1981 and as such there was no illegality on this account.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>21. As regards the other objections it has been submitted by the respondent in the reply that in fact Ram Sahai had got 100 votes and Bajrang Lal had got only 49 votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Maharia. Due to inadvertance the name of Bajrang Lal was wrongly declared as Panch. The name of Ram Sahai was subsequently corrected and he rightly participated in the election of Pradhan. As regards the other objection it has been submitted that Ganga was coopted from ladies quota and Ram Karan was co-opted from the reserved quota of the Scheduled Castes. In this circumstance it cannot be said that both of them were coopted from the quota of the Scheduled Castes. Similarly in Shyampura Kalan also Mst. Dhapu was also coopted from ladies quota and Shatwan was coopted against the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes. In these circumstances there was no illegality in the cooption of any of the Panchas and only competent persons had voted in the election of Pradhan. In view of the above reply submitted by the respondent. I find no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>22. In the result I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 35 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Election
Court	Rajasthan High Court
Decided On	Feb-21-1986
Case Number	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889 of 1982
Judge	Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.
Reported in	1986(2)WLN10
Appellant	Har Sahai
Respondent	State of Rajasthan
Disposition	Petition dismissed
Cases Referred	Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Har Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment