IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11123 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 16.10.2008 Chhindo and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Petitioners Chhindo and Sukhjivan Kaur, who are the defeated candidates in the election of Panches of Gram Panchayat, village Sammipur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Panches of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, held on 26.5.2008 and further for declaring the petitioners as elected Panches from the two seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). It has been further prayed that since out of 7 seats of Panches, only 5 have been filled up, therefore, the election for the office of Sarpanch be not conducted till the filling up of the remaining 2 seats of CWP No. 11123 of 2008 -2- Panches. It is the case of the petitioners that out of the total 9 seats of Panches, 2 were reserved for General category, 3 for Scheduled Caste category and 2 for Scheduled Caste (Women). It is further case of the petitioners that both the petitioners filed their nomination papers against the two seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women), therefore, their candidature should have been considered against those two seats, whereas the respondents have illegally considered them as candidates against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste category. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that against the 2 seats reserved for General category, only 2 persons, namely Avtar Singh and Balbir Singh, filed their nomination papers and both of them were declared elected as unopposed, in view of Section 54 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Against 3 seats reserved for Scheduled Caste category, 9 candidates, including the petitioners filed their nomination papers. Out of those 9 candidates, 3 candidates, namely Shinder Pal, Mohinder Pal and Mulkh Raj, who secured 219, 199 and 189 votes, respectively, were declared elected and both the petitioners secured 29 and 18 votes, therefore, they were declared defeated. Regarding the 2 seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women) category, it has been stated that no nomination paper in this category was received, therefore, these 2 seats remained vacant. With the written statement, nomination papers of both the petitioners have been annexed. A perusal of CWP No. 11123 of 2008 -3- which clearly shows that both the petitioners had filed their nomination papers against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste category and not against the seats reserved for SC (W). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners contested the election of Panches against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). Even otherwise, a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste is not debarred from contesting the election for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category. It is her discretion either to contest against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category or against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). In the present case, both the petitioners consciously contested the elections of Panches against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste category, therefore, their candidature was considered in that category. In that category, nine persons contested the elections. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since both the petitioners are women, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, therefore, they should have been declared elected against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). This submission of learned counsel cannot be accepted, because each candidate is required to file the nomination paper against a specific category. When the petitioners did not file their nomination papers against the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women), then their candidature cannot be considered against those 2 CWP No. 11123 of 2008 -4- seats. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that since out of the seats of 7 Panches, 2 seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women) are still lying vacant, as only 5 Panches have been elected, therefore, the election for the office of Sarpanch be kept in abeyance, cannot be accepted, in view of the decision of this Court in Jagtar Singh versus State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13418 of 2008, decided on 22.9.2008), wherein it has been held that if the election of the Panches, who have been elected in the election, has been notified and they have been administered oath or affirmation, the election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat cannot be kept in abeyance only on the ground that one or two seats of Panches of the Gram Panchayat are yet to be filled up. In view of the above, we do not find any ground either to set aside the election of Panches or to keep the election for the office of Sarpanch in abeyance till the filling up of 2 seats of Panches, reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 16, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE