FAO No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:02.08.2010. Jaswant Singh ...Appellant Versus Ruldu Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order of A.D.C.-cum-Election Tribunal, Barnala dated 08.09.2009 by which the election petition filed by Ruldu Singh (respondent No.1) challenging the election of Jaswant Singh (appellant) has been allowed and respondent No.1 has been declared elected in place of the appellant. In brief, the facts of the case are that the elections were held on 26.05.2008 in order to constitute Gram Panchayat Gehal comprising of nine members, out of which five seats were meant for General category, two seats for Women category, one seat for Scheduled Caste (Woman) category and one seat for Scheduled Caste category. In the said election, the appellant was declared elected in the General category having secured 190 votes, whereas respondent No.1 was remained unsuccessful with 131 votes. Respondent No.1 has challenged election FAO No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - ***** of the appellant on the ground that he was a tenant of the Panchayat land at the time of election, therefore, he was not qualified for being chosen or for being member of the Panchayat. The Election Tribunal has found that the appellant was inducted as a lessee of the Panchayat by resolution dated 08.02.2008 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- as recorded on page No.25 of the Lease Register and the amount of Rs.8,000/- has been received by the Panchayat against receipt No.24. Therefore, finding him to be unqualified at the time of filing of nomination papers his election has been set aside and the election – petitioner (respondent No.1) has been declared to be elected in his place. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that insofar as Section 208(1)(j) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [for short “Act No.9 of 1994”) is concerned, it would not be applicable as the disqualifications have been provided in Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 [Act No.19 of 1994]. He relies upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi and others, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 760 in which it was held that since Act No.19 of 1994 is a subsequent Act, therefore, the disqualifications provided in Act No.19 of 1994 would prevail over and above the disqualifications provided in Act No.9 of 1994 unless the disqualifications in both the Acts are consistent. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once a disqualification is provided under Section 208(1)(j) of the Act No.9 of 1994 and it is proved accordingly, the appellant, being disqualified on the date of filing of nomination papers, could not have been allowed to even contest the election. FAO No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - ***** I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The issue “as to whether the disqualifications provided under Section 11 of the Act No.19 of 1994 would prevail over and above the disqualifications provided in Section 208 of the Act No.9 of 1994” has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi and others (supra) in which following observations have been made: - “The disqualifications are only mentioned in Section 208 of the Act 9 of 1994 and the intention of the legislature is very clear and Section 11 of the Act of 1994 being in later point of time stating therein what are the disqualifications, therefore, the disqualifications mentioned in Section 11 of the Act 19 of 1994 will prevail and not the disqualifications mentioned in Section 208 of Act 9 of 1994. The disqualifications mentioned in Section 208 which are consistent with Section 11 of Act 19 of 1994 can only survive and not other disqualifications.” Therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. However, the Act No.9 of 1994 provides Section 20 with regard to suspension and removal of a Panch or Sarpanch as per which if the Director, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, can remove any Panch or Sarpanch on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 208 of the Act No.9 of 1994. Therefore, the respondent No.1 FAO No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) - 4 - ***** herein is not left without any remedy. If he is able to prove that the elected Panch, namely Jaswant Singh (appellant), was suffering from a disqualification as per Section 208 of the Act No.9 of 1994, he could file application under Section 20 and not an election petition under Section 75 of the Act No.9 of 1994. With theses observations, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. August 02, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE