Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
being ‘a’ Sarp an ch has cash in hand ‘exceeding the “amount acd Wot “opr Es td rls ‘miade diner th g Appesmitsupard a Mee Ye TEUpEID YMG MUON g ¥ENONBS 6 lo adman so ds memberof heen of Paniament ordfihe Legislature é of the’ Purijdb/State:"* mst yeptV viet moe Seer Jo4 noiezimmod yulgen ws - ano to pn Sai oidGaitileu “Provided, that. a..member ah ple taite. fine Pe 1.26 \-oaduegislatureof Punjab State jaay,be, pine oc vid is semember of: “Gram “Panchayat, Panchayat Sarco en od 98° ‘Parshadih"** alérig Swithe his ‘orto Br a eaiagart 4 ee House of Parliament oro the = ee aoe ert ihe ite 3 thie? ae stro es re ik ie Es ae ram palin _ Panchayat. the Panghayat Sami al ee Zila Parishad I ay nets man! & 1 ns nay shas Heeh convicthd:oblanboferteezandér thé ‘protection of the! eee! OE ORIghtS! Et! 195 "wth a> petieAO sO OnvE ERTS: immediately “preceding” {he “ase! date of ‘the titiag Sor the Mebroges? ma sr nomination papers; Or acy aas AAJ (hetOS erortio B oe 2 2 Jae (Oo) beingeasSafpanchsan Panch dotsenct-attactn certificate with SSL “his‘nomination ‘pa irs "to ithe ‘effect’ thab et ies oP to ffi Bick’ Developmetit and Parichayar Onficer 7 a ' A : cara ‘at tie Leak of be Gran Puc “arid of the cas oe theca © ont ANY WIR-DIM6 465% ieuper bas neu Iglzipal insupgedue 6 21 BET lo ———————— 138 THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT) RAJ ACT, 1994 Comments Conviction under NDPS Act — Effect of - Election of Panch - Disqualification — Applicability of Representation of People Act -- Interpretation of Article 243-F would be that the Election Tribunal can consider the disqualification for the purpose of unseating an elected member of Panchayat if he 15 $0 disqualified either under the Act of the State or under the Representation of People Act, meant for the election of the Legislature -- Held, case 15 covered by Article 243-F (i) (a) of the Constitution of India read with Section &(i) (f) of the Representation of People Act and as such, being a convict for 10 years under the NDPS Act, he was not entitled to be considered eligible for contesting the election as a members of the panchayat. Joginder Singh and another v. Balwinder Singh and others. 2010(2) L.A.R. 561 (P&H). Disqualification - Candidate while serving in the Marketing Committee cannot be held to be holding the office of profit. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi & Others, 2008(2) LAR 556 (SC). Disqualification — Disqualifications mentioned in Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act being in later paint of time will prevail and not the disqualificatians mentioned in Section 208 of Punjab Panchayau Raj Act -- Disqualificatons mentioned in Section 208 which are consistent with Section 11 of Punjab State Election Commission Act can only survive and not other disqualifications. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi & Others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 556 (SC). } Disqualification -- Disqualifications prescribed for being elected and/or H continuation of a Member of Panchayal/Municipality in Section 11 of the State Election ; Commission Act, are neilher inconsistent nor repugnant to Section 208 of the Panchayati Raj Act though the latter Act has provided some additional disqualifications as well -- Both the provisions, thus, are supplementary and complimentary to each other, Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi ete., 2006(1) LAR. 376 (P&H D.B.). Disqualification - Person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of a Panchayat if, he incurs any ot the disqualifications enlisted in Section 208 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. 4994 and/or sectian 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi etc. 7006(1) L.A.R. 376 (P&H D.B.). Disqualification — Repealing of provisions — For implied repeal, three tests have been laid down, i.e., (i) whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions, (I) whether the Legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of subject matter replacing the earlier law; (ili) whether the two laws occupy the same field -- No inference of implied repealing of section 208 of the Panchayati Raj Act can be drawn out of Section 143(1) of the State Election Commission Act. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi etc., 2006(1) L.A-R. 376 (P&H D.B). Disqualification —- Suspension/Removal ef Sananch - (incurring of disqualification under section 208 can be the grounds upon which a Member of Panchayat can be suspended or removed from the office. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi etc.. 2006(1) L.A.R. 376 (P&H D.B.) Election of Panch — Challenge to -- At the lime of filing of nomination papers N_O.C. issued by B.0.P.0. was attached alongwith papers by the appellant and the same was accepted by the competent authority but at that time no objection was raised regarding holding of Panchayat land unauthorizedly which was the night stage and now iL can not he on respondent's mouth to take such objection. Balbir Singh v Kamal Singh & others, 2012(1) LA.R. 255 (P&H). , Election of Panch — Unauthorised occupation — Effect of -- Tribunal set aside the election of Panch on the ground thal she was found to be in unauthorized possession of land by relying upon Section 208 of Act No. 9 of 1994 -- Disqualification provided u/s 208 of the Act No. 9 of 1994 with regard to unauthorised occupation of Gram Panchayat land is inconsistent with Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994 — Act No. 19 of 1994 is a subsequent legislation and disqualifications provided in section 41 thereof THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 139 would prevail over and above the disqualifications provided under Section 208 of Act No.9 of 1994 — View taken by the Tribunal is patently illegal — Order of Tribunal set aside. Som Lal's case 2008 (2) L.A.R. 556 relied. Smt. Puro v. Smt.Manjit and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 429 (P&H). Election of Sarpanch — Disqualifications -- Nomination paper - NO-objection from BDPO not attached -— Punjab Panchayati Raj Act came into force w.e-f. 21.4.1994 whereas the Punjab State Election Commission Act came into force w.e-t. 7.9.1994, therefore, the Election Commission Act is later on in time than the Panchayali : Raj Act -- Disqualification mentioned in Section 208(1)(o) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Ca Act does not find mention in Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act — Held, the disqualification provided under the Panchayati Raj Act would not apply. Som Pal's case 2008(2) L.A.R. 557 relied. Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur and others, 2010(2) L.A.R. 90 (P&H). Encroachment upon land - No action by Sarpanch -- Suspension of Sarpanch — Legality of — If a person is found in an unauthorized occupation of property belonging to any local authority then that person shall be declared disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Panchayat — No provisions under the Act, which empowers the State or the Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab to disqualify a person to be a member on the ground that no action was taken by him against the encroachers for some time — Petitioner was not found in illegal possession of any public land — Provision of Section 208(1)(k) of the Act is not attracted -- Hence. there is no ground for removal u/s 20(1){a) ef the Act, consequently, petitioner can not be placed under suspension by invoking Section 20(4) of the Act. Kaki Devi Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2071(1) L.A.R. 160 (P&H). Member of Panchayat - Qualification — Disqualification - Person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of a Panchayat if, he incurs any of the disqualifications enlisted in Section 208 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and/or section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi etc., 2006(1) L.A.R. 376 (P&H D.B.). Narcotic substance — Possession of -- Moral turpitude -- Having possession of any narcotic substance is a serious offence and amounts to moral turpitude. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) LA-R. 521 (P&H). Office of Profit — Anganwari workers — Anganwari Workers are working under a Scheme floated by the Central Government ie. 1.C.0.S. are not holding an office of profit under the State Government — Anganwari workers are not disqualified for being chosen as a Member of a Panchayat. Anokh Singh v. Punjab State Election Cammission, Chandigarh, 2009(1) L.A.R. 494 (P&H DB). : Office of Profit - Employee of local authority, statutory corporation or Board or a Co-operative Society -- Salaried employee of any local authority, statutory corporation or Board or a Co-operative Society can not be held to have held the office of profit under Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi & Others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 556 (SC). Office of Profit — Lambardar — A Lambardar is disqualified for being chosen as member of a Panchayat -- Merely because the office of Lambardar deemed to be not holding an office of profit under the provisions of Punjab State Legislature (Prevention of disqualifications) Act, 1952, it cannot be said that a Lambardar is also exempted from the disqualifications prescribed under clause(g) of Section 11 of the State Election Commission Act - Disqualification under clause (b) of Article 243F of the Constitution shall be in addition to clause (a) of said Article -- Provisions of State Election Commission Act will have overriding effect on other existing law, Anokh Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh, 2009(1) L.A.R. 494 (P&H DB). Office of Profit - Lambardar — Office of the Lambardar is an office of profit under the State Government — A Lambardar is disqualified for being chosen as member of a LE ae Ei THE PUNJAB PARCHAYATTRAD ACH! iad! Paficha ARERAE oy Shes CRATE Ch fan? Ch ga ADOC UR Re ai petites Shahi Pua tae ignudn? ant yd nasi a ? ros io eon PARR "SP lhe kB Reese BEERS Rb yak land = ; ro ualification -- Possessing land of the Gram Bignapeuousar gay ly fs a sual caiion BSl(n(ky SF MEM YP ae APN #et DSicMActiNd GMs ie teen hind tc eB Se eh AbP N02 f0(904 TWHRidiy eho wiar earsisfeniOwath rovinahe Gt Fat ero BF Teg weurd ABE Bed ie Shin's caida Boor: mor RON 760! rafied BaibirSingh ve ‘Kathal Sing Suess eel a aR oi bsnolnain nou igoltileup2i0 -- DA \BA \ -} ini iD) Bfeet (4 dgnyS 9 ne mJ pat 6 aciet a aie ee Bh Fast) pa ie Ben ie igo an ro fate Electic OMMmMission A are nei Henkin ent Bi Sonar t e J G au neber 5 ) yes : Ee ra ce ph [evecen ese engiaivolg of — ce ei 8 one iigial, 18 i t a ey 3 iN Mae A ide 15k fh ene stature, tye. code. in, Matter, cepacing ny : ee laws, occupy, the, se Nat ae aie, mee mission cana ot ietc.,. 2006(1) LAR. 3 B. | 2 Soe eight iO = norte ley joe erage ESA eet enlisted ey “ Boers 11 of the Punjab State Election aio PLRCRSo7e ra ae Js1oM -- to noizesee2o4 — saneladue Stool tips) waliqnut ley calla a bog..8on 1 jz 34 rede HA eee ue — aan CONAN BIG -AAI CHG HSHRGE WricorRloMA Neath aos oF oa folie arrarne ict ee ad a ns povaas core war distqualifications ae 'Wenel ue Sphavisting ANUAY ave “SeAplemellaly Tan? domplineritaryote bet Bier? Sort bv Say Lannie: 20k eh USES eeareres BpipdmaM 6.26 neearts grad freneine aie = Diequaliidaten'? Be eison A hl ee Reel ete a mienber eta Panchayat ne ons-any We-disdiaifichiors Srlisted reel St Pura Parchaya® Raj ani ee treo ‘Panjab Sata Heetioh Commision McC! 1984. SdrP Cary Vijay laxmnileieg 2O06E) AIRS 7e eH 6. y.MOe REET 194 nozeimmo. noses ste! dejnuS arit to Pr noise bru Qualification — Eee Repealing’ of provisions” eC iniplisa” repeat: fires fedle RAAF DER lee, fer (i) tether thete4ardireer coriiiet Benen te two peon eae jistat fieornanaease {ay down! seb Earaastive codesin “so ee seg seater MOC aetirer dee favs) free secupycthe lad iariee en al 2oeeSf tnd a on HA Seay éctign" POOP on babo} maya cose BAIS {Pare BIpen nolsstisupaid -- HA noeeinmea 2 . Sel aeeetaenhag ar yt ee ‘Removal ob NG 2116 weced = ial tarp ne bg Lia ea crimina ee 3 po “i haa er pen be’ ea - post of Panch ier iret 20(1)(a) 7 na ne Act during the pendency of © ee aa me mma JHE PUNJAB.PANCHAYATIRAM AGT. 1894 isi trial Lt 5 I care eg ena iy riomceign wn ees phir ppegreaea a al OTRLMEDEUGE (9 ie. ii tbe ed the cia he rd, Srineeslachea ot Panchayat fu aarti etc. Sie ch ba Bedi) le inh the ast of Pandhayat 18 permit ee ee ‘or Panct Te ee ea Sa pale Gs “AEC NG a and’ is able ne irambvell Under Section 20(V() dt the "FoS@2Aets os es Bi to: Bary : drber YE plese’ | "ther "disgcaliicn Sri aS Grovideds Under Satna 2OBKNG GORE 1954 Re"Shalf Ot Be ttre hirer isehbt A without jurisdiction but also beyond the scope ¢ OF 9oCt) (a) °oF the Ret “Paramyl BUF, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) LAR. 521 (P&H). isvonBepeali ngvok ipkowisinns iF on implied nepeAl ctkyeen es have beaodaid down, iu soa ner Asn byoripneyaienss (i. bee cay ee Bite sty jute 3 Bee cone Sara RE Oa ao blind elec CBRL OH aie icon (PAtLD®.yo 2isysrioned ingiat an : 101 anoifasis 101 baitiosge sou Desrnch os nS earl SANA ae apetion ¢@eaan be at aa ra Oe eerie” $Underey pond “ato a Sapa h ravesn te ts the Seeeenabag, a tar Bale on eub Sieoe itantetofahe village, therefore, they are supposed not to :ndulge in any criminal activities, moceIse. in offence punishable under the NDPS Act — Petitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/nial, as the case may be. Paramyt Kaur, Panch ai The Fania ata Donk migsibmenahd tatters, 29 1 12) DAIRAbEMGT). “tosia .OPS alloy IgA SPER RAEK Redd val GP SarpénEW UO ABMng possession! Ghaty Warcatid sitevarde Ibe ee matcodsphaconscie ihord téopitudeo-b elated Sarpanct/Panch represents the society, and they are the electoc:eepreasetiatwas 80 role-mode! of the habitants of the village. eer. they are supposed not to indulge in any criminal activities, more so, in, le under the NOPS Act — Removal order is liable to be quashed, he : + shall remain under suspension turing thependeney al the investigatonsnal aa thetase Peamiiigayig anh wugbe Finansia Gagmnssione andethar. aa) dR APRA iciaM rfoneqiee ail Is@usperision ah Bdrparith | ie\Rértevabert Sarganch self w= SarpanchPamci Js foul guity avid Ras" Ben toAVIciay dofCakpaffencesihvetving moral tupitude ot for SicHoMaNe? Re. 2 BrgdrypldaAaRanchaytn’s revorknembezzletnent of Panchayat funds. etc. Har tiouldbnot beldésivable mari interest of Panchalyalto! [regs bheseroni Serpanckcita, perform the cuties alPanch.os vale uw sd beter ule ROBELNE) Andie dable ta Be remeed Ute 3Qh) ue wd ponviction ardagipascedthen disqualification as Section abe 1994 Ach shell neha atiractad:m Therekere, aie ane petitioner is not only without jurisdiction but also Bene the 2 of the 1994 Act. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and eee 2012(2) L.A.R. 55 (P&H). pnlergy, Na Sapahen=:44 Farid Rid pabsed Onda eRUBUNARaR fo Me PhasiHal! toe TET ee a onaarenMren ref yroarid tot ryfided ster of 1EsUIse there cunDeciourdensd suspensan. Kokiftey’ SarancipviiGtateof Runakiaed \others220N 11) LAR 1E01PRtiostis Isrit of Dsz2z6q Noiluiozs 6 yd bevioezib Suspension of Sarpanch - Unauthorised possessiondaMalhpinaical P with regard to an encroachment of a small piece of land cannot be made the basis for suspension of a Sarpanch -- Even if it is taken to be correct that the petitioner had SyicrodG RANA LATN aksefof 5 Biswasi bfdinsra Noenil) nadie a imigtakbetan occLt St pnit2ixs ort JoA aini ni bsnis: uriivas pnibnetedtiwiol -- -banaildsies 142 THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT! RAJ ACT, 1994 any lime more parlicularly when land is under cultivation, Tejinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) L.A.R. 395 (P&H DB). Unauthorised possession -- Suspension of Sarpanch — Mathematical precision with regard to an encroachment of a small piece of land cannot be made the basis for suspension of a Sarpanch -- Even if it is taken to be correct that the petitioner had encroached upon an area of 5 Biswasi of Khasra No. 440, such a mistake can occur at any lime more particularly when land is under cultivation. Tejinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) L.A.R. 395 (P&H DB). (209) Power of State Government to direct holding of general élections.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or rules made thereunder, the State Government may, by notification, direct that a general election of the members of the Panchayats shall be held by such date as may be specified in the notification and different dates may be | specified for elections for different Panchayats or group or groups thereof: Provided that the power of issuing direction under sub-section(1) may be exercised by the State Government at any time even though a period of five years has not yet expired since the holding of the last election. (2) As soon as a notification is issued under sub-section (1), the Election Commissioner shall take necessary steps for holding such election. superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for and conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats, shall be vested in the Election Commission. S210. Election Commission to conduct Panchayat election.-- The Comments Election of Panchayat —- Panchayat constitutes the Panches as well as the Sarpanch — Merely because meeting of the Panches is being convened by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 13-4 of the Panchayati Raj Act does not mean that the Stale Election Commission has no control over the election of the Sarpanch -- Provisions of the Election Commission Act are applicable to the election of the Sarpanch. Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB). Power of Election Commission -- General superintendence of the Chief State Election Officer as not to be pervasive enough to include even a power to countermand an election - Order of State Election Commissioner, countermanding the election is. liable to be quashed. Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(2) L.A.R. 128 (P&H).