IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17803 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 15.10.2008 Surjit Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is resident of Village Janherian, Tehsil and District Patiala, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the result of respondents No.6 and 7, who have been elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Janherian, Tehsil and District Patiala, in the elections held on 26.5.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that both the aforesaid respondents have concealed certain facts regarding their disqualification to contest the elections. With regard to respondent No.6, it has been stated that her father-in-law Harbans Singh is in illegal occupation of the Gram Panchayat land and respondent No.6 is living jointly with her father-in-law. CWP No. 17803 of 2008 -2- Regarding respondent No.7, it has been stated that he was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 323 IPC, vide judgment dated 1.10.1996. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent No.7 was also disqualified from contesting the elections of Panch. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') or the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Election Act'), which disqualifies a woman from contesting the election merely on the ground that her father-in-law is in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land, nor he has been able to refer to any provision, which disqualifies any person from contesting the elections on the ground that he is living in joint family and one member of the joint family is in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.6 was disqualified to contest the elections of Panch. As far as respondent No.7 is concerned, we have perused Section 11 of the Election Act and Section 208 of the Act, which provide disqualification for membership of Gram Panchayat. As per clause (c) of Section 208 (1) of the Act, a person shall be disqualified for being elected as Panch, if he has been convicted for certain offences, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his conviction. Since conviction of respondent No.7 was recorded in the year 1996, therefore, he is also not disqualified for CWP No. 17803 of 2008 -3- being elected as Panch. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 15, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE