Dismissed

Baldev Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2012CWP/18685/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ to quash the election of Zila Parishad officials and direct fresh elections in Sangrur. The single-judge bench dismissed the petition as infructuous because the term of the Zila Parishad had expired due to the efflux of time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as rendered infructuous due to the expiry of the Zila Parishad's term.

Baldev Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Election Law | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No.18685 of 1994

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18685 of 1994 Date of decision:01.05.2012

Baldev Kaur

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & others .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: None for the petitioner,

¶10

Mr.Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

G.S.Sandhawalia J. (Oral)

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the election of respondents No.4 & 5 as Chairman and ViceChairman of Zila Parishad, Sangrur and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to hold a meeting of the Zila Parishad, Sangrur for electing Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zila Parishad, Sangrur.

¶14

It has been pleaded that the Zila Parishad, Sangrur consists of 25 directly elected members from territorial constituencies as required under Section 162 (1) (a) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and in addition to this, there are 12 Panchayat Samities in District Sangrur whose Chairmen are ex-officio members under Section 162 (1) (b) and in addition, under Sub-clause (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Act i.e., members of Parliament and State Legislature representing the Zila Parishad area. It is pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner was appointed to call first meeting of the directly elected members of Zila Parishad, Sangrur including the Chairmen of the Panchayat Samities of the District to elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Zila Parishad and the meeting was called for 12.11.1994 and the election had not been held. The total strength of Zila Parishad, Sangrur for the purpose of election was 35. There are other allegations that the whole area of meeting place was surrounded by police

¶15

¶16

CWP No.18685 of 1994

¶17

officials and the members were refused entry in the hall and the names of respondents No.4 & 5 were proposed for Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Accordingly, prayer was made that the elections had not been held in a proper manner.

¶18

The writ petition was contested by way of filing written statement by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Sangrur on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. In the said reply, it had been averred that the petitioners had alternative remedy of filing election petition as the election process had already been completed. It is denied that police officials were present in the polling area and it is alleged that only members were allowed to enter in the meeting hall. The private respondents, Smt.Roop Kaur and Tej Kaur were elected in the voting process and the election process was completed by 10 p.m. and the result was subject to final decision of CWP No.15577 of 1994 which was pending and disposed of subsequently by order dated 25.11.1994 appended as Annexure R2.

¶19

Under Section 166 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, it is provided that every Zila Parishad shall have a term for 5 years from the date appointed for the first meeting referred in Section 179 and no longer. The said period of 5 years has long since expired and by virtue of efflux of time, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and thus, the relief claimed by the petitioner no longer survives. Even otherwise, counsel for the petitioner is not present to assist the Court.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.

¶21

(G.S.Sandhawalia) JUDGE

¶22

01.05.2012 sailesh

Baldev Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh Joga Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhvinder Singh Vs Sukhdarshan Singh & Ors.

Hardev Singh Vs Gurdeep Singh and Ors.

Malkiat Singh Vs G.N.D.University Amritsar and Anr.

Raj Mumar Vs Prem Kumar and Anr.