Skip to content


Des Raj Vs. the State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 4141 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1974P& H214
ActsPunjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Sections 10, 12 and 13
AppellantDes Raj
RespondentThe State of Punjab and ors.
Excerpt:
.....further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments..........and 2 members were to be elected by persons licensed under section 13 of the act. elections to the market committee were notified to be held on november 17, 1968. the nomination papers of shri hanuman dass, a candidate for producer member seat, were rejected by the election officer. he filed a writ petition in this court which was allowed on november 15, 1968. in view of paucity of time, the election of producer members was not held on november 17, 1968, but the election of members by the persons licensed under section 10 and 13 of the act were held and respondents 4 to 10 were elected. the result of their election was announced on november 18, 1968, but their elections were never notified by the state government, with the result that they never became members of the market committee and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Market Committee Abohar, was to consist of 16 members, out of whom 15 were to be elected and 1 to be nominated by the State Government. Nine out of 15 elected members were to be elected by the producers of the area, 4 were to be elected by persons licensed under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), and 2 members were to be elected by persons licensed under Section 13 of the Act. Elections to the Market Committee were notified to be held on November 17, 1968. The nomination papers of Shri Hanuman Dass, a candidate for producer member seat, were rejected by the Election Officer. He filed a writ petition in this court which was allowed on November 15, 1968. In view of paucity of time, the election of producer members was not held on November 17, 1968, but the election of members by the persons licensed under Section 10 and 13 of the Act were held and respondents 4 to 10 were elected. The result of their election was announced on November 18, 1968, but their elections were never notified by the State Government, with the result that they never became members of the Market Committee and in fact it was never constituted. For the election of 9 producer members of the Market Committee, a notification was issued on May 26, 1970, which was amended by notification dated June 15, 1970. In pursuance of those notifications, the election programme was notified and the polling was to take place on September 8, 1970. A writ petition (C. W. 2730 of 1970) was filed in this Court challenging the said notifications which was accepted by Suri, J; on December 1, 1970, on the submission made by the learned Advocate-General for the State of Punjab that the impugned notifications had been rescinded. The learned Advocate-General also submitted that 'if any fresh notification is issued, the party aggrieved can have recourse to the remedies available to him in the Court.' In view of this submission, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition. At that time it was not disclosed by the State Government that similar notification had been issued no November 20, 1970, for holding the election of 9 producer members and that the date for polling had been fixed as January 10, 1971. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present petition for the quashing of that notification. The Motion Bench, while admitting the petition, stayed the holding of the election. The result is that for about 5 years no Market Committee, Abohar, has been constituted. In these circumstances, there is no use holding piecemeal elections of elected members for which there is no provision in the Act or the Election Rules. Section 12 of the Act contemplates the constitution of a Market Committee of all the elected members and the official member at one and the same time. It is the membership of that complete committee that has to be notified by the State Government. I have, therefore, no choice except to quash the impugned notification dated November 20, 1970. The State Government is directed to hold fresh elections for all the elected members of the Market Committee, Abohar. This petition is accordingly accepted with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/- to be paid by the State of Punjab.

2. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //