C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.11.2009 Harbans son of Sohna Ram .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Dhul, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition addresses the issue of the alleged election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti, Bhuna District, Fatehabad. The election was supposed to have been held on 22.10.2008 with 12 out of 22 members being present. The challenge consists in an allegation that the quorum for the meeting as per Rule 76 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules of 1994 is 2/3rd of the total members and the 12 persons, who were said to be present did not constitute the quorum. The contention of the petitioner, however, was to the C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 -2- effect that there was a meeting proposed on 20.10.2008 through notice dated 08.10.2008. On that day, the Presiding Officer did not come at all and the petitioner and others were present and it was not a case of an adjourned meeting when it was held on 22.12.2008 but it was the first meeting that was held. The absence of any reference to the lack of quorum on 20.10.2008 in the second notice was itself the pointer, according to the petitioner, to the fact that no meeting at all had been held on 20.10.2008. 2. The averments in the petition were refuted by the respondents on the ground that admittedly the notice of the first meeting for electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman had been served on all members and there was also a meeting on 20.10.2008 when the persons who were required to conduct the election were actually present. Since none of the members was present for one hour and ten minutes from 11 A.M., which was the time prescribed for the meeting, the meeting was being adjourned. Consequently when the second notice was issued on 11.12.2008, it was to be treated only as an adjourned meeting where no quorum was necessary and the number of persons, who were present themselves constituted the quorum to elect the representatives as Chairman and Vice Chairman. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the so-called proceedings dated 20.10.2008 is a mere fabrication and it is most unlikely that no members could have C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 -3- turned up. According to the petitioner, he had no ground to suspect that the meeting dated 22.12.2008 was to be treated as an adjourned meeting where no quorum was necessary. The fabrication had been done to suit their own purpose to exclude the petitioner from the fray and bring about a farce of an election. 4. The writ petition is contested among other grounds by the State contending that whether a meeting had at all been held on 20.10.2008 and whether there was a complete lack of quorum or not, as contended by the State and as recorded in the resolution book, are essentially questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 in a writ petition. The second line of defence for the State was that the copy of the proceedings dated 20.10.2008 itself has been filed by the petitioner and if that was the basis on which the second meeting is said to have been called without a challenge to the proceedings dated 20.10.2008, the writ petition itself cannot be sustained. 5. The writ petition invokes a finding on whether there existed a meeting on 20.10.2008 or not. It is not in dispute that a first meeting had been called on 20.10.2008. While the petitioner contends that a meeting had not been held although they were present and the Officers had not turned up, the contention of the respondents is that the officers were present but none of the members had turned up. Between these two extreme swings at the pendulum, there shall be no adjudication possible without resolving the issue whether the proceedings recorded on C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 -4- 20.10.2008 is true or not. It is just as well possible that there was no meeting at all on 20.10.2008 in which case when a fresh notice dated 11.12.2008 had been issued to convene a meeting on 22.12.2008, it would still be necessary to obtain 2/3rd quorum. On the other hand, if the meeting had been there on 20.10.2008 and the members did not show up, the notice sent on 11.12.2008 for the meeting held on 22.12.2008 required no quorum at all. The persons present themselves constituted the quorum and the election made of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman cannot be assailed. I find myself handicapped by lack of evidence on whether there existed a meeting at all on 20.10.2008 or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself is fair to point out to the provision of Section 115 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which reads as follows:- "115. Enquiry into affairs of Panchayat Samitis.--(1) The Government may, at any time, cause an enquiry to be made by any of its officers into the affairs of a Panchayat Samiti in regard to any matter concerning it or in regard to any matter with respect to which the sanction, approval, consent or order of the Government is required by or under this Act. (2) The officer holding such enquiry shall have the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to take evidence and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents for the purposes of the enquiry. 6. Learned State Counsel, Sh. Nalwa, however, contends that an enquiry into the affairs which Section 115 contemplates cannot take into fold an enquiry relating to whether there existed a meeting for the conduct of election or not. When there is no C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 -5- particular provision mentioned in the rules themselves in relation to a dispute of the conduct of a meeting, it will be perfectly justified to suffuse what the rules lack and read such a possibility from the provisions of the principal enactment itself and therefore, I would read into Section 115, a right to the Government to cause an enquiry to be made by any of its officers into the affairs of the Panchayat Samiti, which shall include in the circumstances also whether there was a meeting on 20.10.2008 or not. If there had been a meeting and the resolution dated 20.10.2008 was true, the election dated 22.12.2008 and the ultimate result pronounced would be justified. If there was no such meeting on 20.10.2008 at all and the resolution had not been made on that day as contended by the petitioner, the result of the election dated 22.10.2008 cannot stand. It is represented by the counsel that the term of the office of the Chairman and Vice Chairman itself would conclude by February, 2010 and having regard to the very short period which is available, I direct the 1st respondent to constitute an enquiry through any of its officers on the contentions raised by the parties and adjudicate on the dispute as I have enumerated above before 31.12.2009 and secure a report as expeditiously as possible preferably upto 31.01.2010. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 30, 2009 Pankaj* C.W.P. No.1446 of 2008 -6-