Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28091 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Dev Respondent :- State Of U P And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Autar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushlesh Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. The principal prayers made in the writ petition read thus:
“a). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Rule 21 of the UP Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1994 as ultravires the Constitution of India and strike down the same.
b). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the by-election of Shri Sheoveer Singh/Respondent No. 7 as member of Kshetra Panchayat Chhibramu, District Kannauj from its Territorial Constituency No. 75 (Asalatabad-III) as void.”
The petitioner and respondent no.7 had filed nominations for their election as Members of the Kshetra Panchayat, Chhibramau, district Kannauj. The petitioner's nomination came to be rejected and since respondent no.7 was the only candidate, who remained in the fray, he was declared elected under Rule 21 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1994 (for short Rules, 1994).
Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner does not desire to challenge the order rejecting his nomination. He has challenged Rule 21 solely on the ground that there is no provision in the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short Adhiniyam, 1961), providing for declaration of any candidate as elected in the absence of a contest. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1994, reads thus:
“21. Uncontested election.- (1) Whereon preparing the list under Rule 20, the Nirvachan Adhikari finds that there is only one contesting candidate for a constituency, he shall forthwith declare such candidate as duly elected.
(2) The Nirvachan Adhikari shall report to the District Magistrate, the names of the candidates declared elected under this rule and the nature of seats (whether reserved or unreserved) to which they were elected the number of seats of either nature remaining unfilled.”
Rules are framed under Section 237 read with Section 264 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1961. We have perused the provisions of both the Sections. Section 237 confers power on the State Government to make rules and Section 264-B provides for the manner and conduct of elections. Section 264-B (1) provides that election to the office of a member of a Zila Panchayat or a Pramukh or a member of a Kshetra Panchayat shall be held by secret ballot in the manner provided by rules which shall also provide for resolution of doubts and disputes relating to the “election” of such Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha, Pramukh and Up-Pramukh. Our attention was also drawn to Article 243C of the Constitution of India, which provides for the composition of Panchayats. Clause (2) of Article 243C provides that all the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by “direct election” from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in the manner provided therein.
Thus, from a plain reading of the language of Section 264-B (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1961 and Article 243C of the Constitution, it is clear that there shall be “direct election” from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area. Election does not mean as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, actual contest between two or more candidates. If only one candidate files nomination or if the nomination filed by other candidate (s) is/are rejected and only one person remains in fray, he also stands elected under Rule 21. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no.7 by coercion or other illegal means did not allow others to contest or to file nomination.
It is also pertinent to note that Rule 22 of the Rules, 1994 also provides that contest shall be only when contesting candidates exceed one. This rule has not been challenged in the instant writ petition.
In the circumstances, we do not find it necessary to examine the validity of the Rule, at the instance of the petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 RK (Yashwant Varma, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)