Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Substituted for the words “Gram Panchayats” vide Punjab Act Mo.15 of 1998. am nnn 30 THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 Election of Panch — Reservation of Seats -- Category/reservation of seals of Panches already notified before elections, cannot possibly be subsequently changed after the completion of election process and declaration of the result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) LA.R. 179 (P&H). Election of Sarpanch -- Election petition — Requirement of -- Election can only be challenged by way of an Election Petition presented in accordance with the provision of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election in question was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner or the ground that election was held under the threat of some Panchayat members, which is also one of the grounds to prove corrupt practice -- However no election petition was filed and learned Deputy Commissioner had exercised the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal which can not be said to be legal. Jasvir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) LAR. 135 (P&H). interpretation of statute -- Wards of an enactment are to be given their ordinary, popular and natural meaning - If such meaning is clear and unambiguous, the effect should be given to a provision of a statute in the same manner whatever may be the consequences -- If the language of a statute is clear, the only duty of the Court is to give effect to it and the Court has no business to look into the consequences of such interpretation -- Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition -— Equally, it is now well recognized proposition of law that mandatory provisions and command of law have to be complied with in the same manner as envisaged and mandated by any statute and it cannot be interpreted otherwise. Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) LAR. 279 (P&H) Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 45-A(8) [As amended by Punjab Election (Second Amendment) Rules, 2008, vide Notification dated 11.11.2008] — Reserved Category Sarpanch — Government amended the Rules and done away with the requirement of proposer or seconder, particularly in the election of Sarpanch of the Panchayat by further introducing Rule 45-A and Schedule to the effect that if there is only one candidate available for the office of Sarpanch of the reserved category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste (Woman), then he/she shall be deemed to have been elected unopposed for the office of Sarpanch - Held, Government in exercise of its power conferred by Section 139 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, have rightly amended the Rules in order to make the reservation in the election of Sarpanches more effective and meaningful, no illegality in ihe same -- Sub-rule (8) of Rule 45-A of the Amended Rules is in consonance with Section $4 of the Punjab Stale Election Commission Act. Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2009(2) L.A.R. 398 (P&H DB), Punjab Reservation for the Office of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats, Chairman and Vice Chairman of Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Rules, 1994, Rule 3(3) — Reservation — Cormgendum — Earlier seat was reserved for the post of Sarpanch for Scheduled Caste (Woman) as reservation Was made district wise - By issuing corrigendum seat was reserved for General category and said reservation was made block wise — Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to change the reservation by issuing corrigendum. Paramjit Kaur v, State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 363 (P&H DB). Punjab State Legislative (Prevention of Disqualifications) Act, 1952 (7 of 4952), Section 2(a) —- Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 11(g) — Lambardar - Office of profit - Election of Panch/Sarpanch -- Circular to the effect that Lambardar held “office of profit” and thus are ineligible to contest — Held, a Lambardar is qualified to contest the elections for legislative assembly, this could be a stepping stone for becoming the Chief Minister of the State -- Therefore, it would seem a little incongruous that a Lambardar would not be permitted io seek election to the Panchayat -- Village level democracy is the bedrock of the Indian National Democracy -- Held, disqualification introduced though the circular could prove disastrous to democracy at the grassroots level -- Office of a Lambardar would not be THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT! RAJ ACT, 1994 31 an ‘office of profit’ -- Circular quashed. Anokh Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission, 2010(2) L.A.R. 293 (SC) Reservation - A candidate was elected to the office of Panch against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste women -- Being a woman, she Is fully eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch. which is reserved for women. Sukhjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 361 (P&H DB) Reservation — A candidate who was elected as a Panch from the seat reserved for General (Woman), was fully eligible to contest the election for the office of Sarpanch, which was reserved for General Category. Rami Saini v. State of Punjab and olhers, 2008(2) L.A.R. 364 (P&H DB) Reservation for Scheduled caste -- A woman belonging to Scheduled Caste. can contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman), irrespective of the fact that she was elected as Panch of the Gram Panchayat against the reserved seat of General Calegory. Gurmit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 387 (P&H DB) Reservation for Scheduled Caste for Panch — Election — Challenge to -- According to the figures of population collected by the State, there is not a single scheduled caste or backward class resident in the village -- Prayer for reservation of posts for scheduled caste in Gram Panchayat is misconceived — Election to the Gram Sabha has already been held and this could have been questioned only by way of election petition and controversy raised in the writ petition is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Karnail Singh v, State of Punjab & others, 2010(2) L.A.R. 409 (P&H), Reservation for the post of Sarpanch -- By corrigendum, one office reserved for Women has been substituted by the category of Scheduled Caste -- By this change, the number of reservation of the Women has been reduced from one-third of the total members. i.e.. fram 31 to 30 -- This change not only violates Section 12 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules, but also clause(4) of Article 243D of the Constitution, of India -—- Changing the category fram Women to Scheduled Caste by the impugned corrigendum i$ not only illegal and violative but also wholly without jurisdiction. Savinder Kaur and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 262 (P&H DB). Reservation for the post of Sarpanch -- Offices of Sarmpanches of Gram Panchayats shall be reserved and operated as per the roster prepared by the Deputy Commissioner — Roster shall be prepared block-wise — No where it is provided that an office of Sarpanch of a village Gram Panchayal is to be reserved for a particular category where the population of that category is more in the village. Savinder Kaur and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 262 (P&H DB). Reservation of seat for Sarpanch — No one to seconded the name — Effect of - Power of Returning officer -- Government issued notification reserving the post of Sarpanch for Scheduled Caste (Women) — In the proceedings name of respondent was proposed and there was no one to second her name as required under Rule 45 of the Rules — Held. it does not empower the Returning Officer to allow a male candidate from General Category to contest for the post of Sarpanch reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). Kuldip Singh Panch and others v. Kutwinder Kaur and others, 2010(2) LAR 136 (P&H) Rotation of Reservation — Block wise reservation -- Block-wise rotalion is not contrary to Section 12(4) of the 1994 Act -- Block-wise reservation excludes the population figure for areas which are not covered by the Panchayati Raj Institutions — Notification dated May 8, 2008 introducing block-wise reservation is not ultra vires Articles 243(D) of the Constitution of India or Section 12(1) of the Punjab Panchayal Raj Act. Harmeet Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission and another, 2009(7) L.A.R. 640 (P&H DB). Rotation of Reservation — Block wise reservation — Challenge to -- Block-wise rotation was pul into effect just a few minutes before nominations opened, very little 32 THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACI, 1994 time was given to the prospective candidates to plan their course of action for the election or raise objections to unreasonable and misconceived rotation/reservation -- Constitution forbids any interference in the election process in the allotment of seats — Court is bound by the constitutional prohibitions and can not al this stage undo rotation which has already been put into motion and on the basis of which rotation, thousands of people have fought elections in the hope of ultimately getling elected as Sarpanches of the Panchayats in the different categories allotted to them. Harmeet Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission and another, 2009(1) LAR, 640 (P&H DB), Scheduled Caste (Women) - Reservation — A Panch elected against the reserved category of Scheduled Castes Women, is fully eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes category, being a ‘woman’ belonging to Scheduled Caste. Parmijit Singh v. Slate of Punjab and alhers, 2008(2) L.A.R. 211 (P&H DB). Scheduled Caste (Women) — Reservation — If the seat of Sarpanch of a village is reserved for Scheduled Caste, then both Men and Women belonging to Scheduled Castes category can contest the election for the said post — If the seat of a Sarpanch of a village is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women), then only women Panches belanging to Scheduled Caste can contest against the said seat. Parmjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 211 (P&H DB). ‘143. Notification of election and oath of allegiance by Panches.— (1) “[The election of a Sarpanch and Panches] shall be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette and no member shall enter upon his duties until his election has been so notified and he has taken an oath or affirmation as specified in Schedule 1. (2) Ifa person refuses to take an oath or affirmation, referred to in sub- section (1), his election shall be deemed to be invalid and a fresh election shall be got conducted. (3) No person, whose election is deemed to be invalid under sub- section (2), shall be eligible for election to any Gram Panchayat for a period of two years from the date of such invalidation. (4) The election of all excluding those persons whose election is deemed invalid under sub-section (2) shall again be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette] Comments Death of Panch - Consequence of - Names of elected Panches notified -- After issuance of the notification and before convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, one elected member was'murdered — Holding of the election for the office of Sarpanch cannot be kept in abeyance till filling-up of the casual vacancy. Sukhdip Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 249 (P&H DB). Election of Panch — Equality of votes — Declaration of result -- Both candidates secured equal number of votes -- Both the candidates gave their consent-n writing to the Presiding Officer that their result be declared ‘by way of toss’ -- Toss was __