Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee v State of Punjab and others

Punjab And Haryana High Court

13 June 2013

CW.P. No. 8290 of 2013

The Judgment was delivered by : Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee has filed this petition in public interest seeking; a declaration that the provisions of Ss. 10 and 10-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Amendment Act No.4 of 2012) [hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act”] is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and thePunjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, insofar as it excludes the role/superintendence, direction and control of State Election Commission in the formation of wards in Gram Sabhas; a direction to the respondents to undertake, complete and finalize the entire process of Wardbandi in all the Gram Sabhas in all the Districts of the State of Punjab strictly in accordance with the provisions of Ss. 10 and 10-A of the Amendment Act and Part-IX of the Constitution of India; for quashing the entire process of Wardbandi hitherto done by the respondents in violation of mandatory provisions of S. 10 and 10-A of the Amendment Act; quashing all the subsequent proceedings regarding the preparation/revision of voter lists on the basis of illegal Wardbandi; directing the respondents to initiate and undertake the process of Wardbandi and reservation in the State of Punjab afresh by following the mandatory procedure enunciated in Section 10, 10-A and 11 ofthe Amendment Act; and for restraining the respondents from holding/going for Panchayat elections on the basis of defective and illegal Wardbandi and the consequent voter lists.

It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner, a constituent of Indian National Congress, duly registered with the Election Commission of India is committed to the lofty ideals of democratic rights from the grass- root level through free, fair, just and transparent process of elections at all levels, received numerous complaints regarding grave illegalities and irregularities committed in the process of Wardbandi in the State of Punjab. Espousing public interest, the present petition has been filed for redressal of the grievances of the general public. S. 10 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] has been substituted by the Amendment Act w.e.f. 21.05.2012 and Section 10-A has been added. The process of Wardbandi was initiated in all the villages in the State of Punjab for the forthcoming elections of the Gram Panchayats due in the year 2013. The basic principle of contiguity and population is not adhered to inasmuch as the proposed lists of wards were not published in the official gazette, as per the requirement of law. It is further pleaded that the proposed Wardbandi, published/displayed, is totally vague, incomplete, misleading and evasive. The proposed lists of Wardbandi of some blocks, namely Patti Chola Sahib of District Tarn Taran and block Dina Nagar of District Gurdaspur are annexed along with some orders of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the residents of District Tarn Taran who had sought complete particulars of house numbers and site plan etc. It is also pleaded that the proposed lists do not indicate the method and procedure adopted for formulation of the wards as it does not reflect house number and site plan on the contiguity pattern though in every village house numbers are allocated to the residents, therefore, effective or meaningful objections could not be filed.

2. The lists were not displayed by the Deputy Commissioners, District Development and Panchayat Officer and Block Development and Panchayat Officer of the concerned Panchayats/Gram Sabha areas and even the mandatory period of 7 days for filing the objections was not granted. The petitioner also averred that the final notification of Wardbandi has been issued and for that matter, the list of Wardbandi regarding block Patti Chola Sahib of District Tarn Taran and block Dina Nagar of District Gurdaspur were attached. It is also alleged that the authority to formulate wards has to be an independent authority, conferment of exclusive powers on the Deputy Commissioners and exclusion of the State Election Commission is illegal.

3. In the reply filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition were raised; firstly on the ground of delay; secondly on account of vagueness of the petition because no particulars have been given about the place where the proposed list was not displayed and numbers were not furnished and no representation by any aggrieved person was attached. It was rather alleged that 6231 objections were received, out of which 2922 were allowed and 3309 were dismissed. Thirdly the election law confers specific right on each voter which cannot be invoked by the petitioner; and finally the bar of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India was raised. On merits, it was pleaded that prior to the Amendment Act, the Panchayats were constituted in terms of S. 10 of the Act taking Gram Sabha as a multi- member single constituency. However, this system was highlighted in CWP No.10804 of 2008 and vide order dated 07.01.2009, this matter was referred to the Full Bench and during the pendency of the adjudication of Full Bench, the Government decided to introduce amendment in the Act so that the elections of the Panchayats can be conducted as a multi-member constituency instead of multi-member single constituency. Accordingly, Amendment Act was brought and the Gram Sabha was divided into wards on the basis of its population by amending S. 10 and inserting Section 10-A in the Amendment Act. It is further averred that in view of the provisions of Ss. 10 and 10-A of the Amendment Act, the Deputy Commissioner in the State of Punjab has been declared as the competent authority to initiate the process of Wardbandi and the necessary guidelines were issued to them vide letter No.DPE-1/78/12/Policy/21720-41 dated 07.09.2012. As per the guidelines, the following procedure was asked to be followed:-

“I. The number of wards should be inconsonance with the number of seats of panches of that Gram Panchayat. For example if the seats of panches are 5 in number then 5 wards would be made. It is pertinent to mention here that the number of panches in a particular village is to be determined on the basis of population slab as prescribed u/s 10(IC) of the Act.

II. Every ward should be contiguous geographically.

III. Every ward should be given a specific serial number.

IV. The population of each ward should be same as far as possible.

V. After the formation of wards in view of the aforesaid procedure, the Deputy Commissioner will publish the same in the official gazette and the same shall also be displayed on the notice boards in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, District Development and Panchayat Officer and in the Gram Panchayat. By this publication and display objections were invited and the concerned were asked to submit their objections within 7 days.

VI. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner will decide the objections within 30 days.

VII. After deciding the objections, the final list of ward bandi shall be notified in the official gazette.

VIII. They were further asked to ensure the publication of final notification before 31.01.2013.

IX. They were also asked that the copies of final publication of notification should also be sent to State Election Commission Punjab so that revision/preparation of electoral rolls should be done in view of such ward bandi.

X. It was also brought to their notice that any deviation from such practice shall be viewed seriously.”

4. Some other guidelines were also issued on 19.09.2012 and 30.11.2012 respectively, which read as under:-

“U/s. 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Amended Act No.4 Year 2012), the following provisions regarding reservation of Panches (Wards) of the Gram Panchayats have been made:-

11(1) The office of Panches shall be reserved for the Scheduled Caste in such a way that the number of offices reserved for Scheduled Caste shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of offices (to be filled by direct election) in that Gram Panchayat, as the population of the Scheduled Caste to the total population in that Gram Panchayat Sabha area.

(2) Not less than one-third of the total number of offices reserved under sub-s. (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

(3) Not less than one-third (including the number of offices reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Caste) of the total number of offices (to be filled by direct election) in every Gram Panchayat shall be reserved for Women.

(4) One office of Panch shall be reserved for Backward Class in a Gram Panchayat where population of Backward Classes in the Gram Sabha area is more than twenty per cent of the total population of that Gram Sabha area.

(5) The Deputy Commissioner shall reserve the offices of Panchayat under this section for various categories by notification published in the official gazette and such offices shall be allotted by rotation in the different wards formulated under sub-section (1-C) of Section 10A the time of every general election and such rotation shall be made as per the roster maintained in the office of the Deputy Commissioner.”

“Keeping in view the statistics of census 2001, the reservation of the seats/wards of Panches should be as under:-

With the proportionate of the population of Scheduled Castes of the village, the reservation of the Panchs (Wards) should be made. For example if in any village there are 5 wards and there is 30% population of Scheduled caste then out of 5 seats 2 wards will be reserved for scheduled caste. In each Gram Panchayat 1/3 share of the total wards should be reserved for women like

1. Ward No.1 Scheduled Caste

2. Ward No.2 Scheduled Caste Woman

3. Ward No.3 Woman

4. Ward No.4 General

5. Ward No.5 General

If the population of backward classes is 20% or above in the village then the seat No.4 will be kept for backward classes.

At the time of reservation first Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste Woman, Woman, Backward Classes (if the population is above 20%) and in the last the General Wards should be reserved.”

6. It is further averred that in terms of the aforesaid guidelines, all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Punjab started process of Wardbandi and the field functionaries of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab were deputed for the said task. In this regard, initially a rough sketch of the village abadi, in which streets and deras have been shown, was prepared and after taking into account the total population of the Gram Sabha, it was divided into equal number of wards as required u/s. 10(1C) of the Act. It is categorically pleaded that since practically the houses situated in the village abadi are not recognized by any house number and are recognized by the name of the person, borders of such wards were named in the name of persons. After the aforesaid exercise was done, the village wise details in the prescribed performa prepared by the field level functionary was submitted to the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer who consolidated the total list which was submitted to the office of the Deputy Commissioner where it was further consolidated and such list was not only published in the official gazette in the month of December, 2012 but was also displayed on the notice boards in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, District Development and Panchayat Officer and in the concerned Gram Panchayat, inviting objections in terms of the provisions of Act. It is further averred that total 6231 objections throughout the State of Punjab were received and out of these objections, 2922 objections were allowed and 3309 objections were dismissed and for that mater, District wise details, reproduced in the reply, is as follows:-

District	No. of objections received	No. of objections corrected	No. of objections dismissed
Amritsar	384	151	233
Bathinda	125	18	107
Barnala	60	42	18
Ferozepur	235	112	123
Fazilka	331	225	106
Faridkot	458	128	330
Fatehgarh Sahib	201	201	0
Gurdaspur	112	39	73
Hoshiarpur	467	337	130
Jalandhar	256	137	119
Kapurthala	211	136	75
Ludhiana	415	183	232
Mansa	205	75	130
Muktsar	61	16	45
Moga	474	48	426
SBS Nagar	196	75	121
Patiala	828	388	440
Pathankot	140	78	62
Ropar	280	197	83
Sangrur	389	214	175
Mohali	53	38	15
Tarn Taran	350	75	274
Total	6231	2914	3317

7. It is alleged that after considering and deciding the objections, final Wardbandi was published in the official gazette by all the Deputy Commissioners before 31.01.2013 and the copies of the final notification were also sent to the State Election Commission, Punjab for the purposes of revision/preparation of electoral rolls. The necessary details in this regard, as reproduced in the reply, are as follows:-

District	No. and Date of initial Notification	No. and Date of final Notification
Amritsar	1901-1909/20.12.2012 Amended letter No.1910- 1915/16.01.13, 1925/13.02.2013	1916-1924/05.02.2013
Bathinda	3793-7107/20.12.2012	770-1083/31.01.2013
Barnala	BNL/WBN/BNL/DA/ 2012/1147 DATED 20.12.2012	1308-1310/31.01.2013
Ferozepur	1-6/20.12.2012	33-36, 38/18.01.2013 39/21.01.2013 40, 42-44/31.01.2013
Fazilka	1224-27/20.12.2012	1347, 1350/30.01.2013
Faridkot	5487/20.12.2012	215, 226/31.01.2013
Fatehgarh Sahib	1120-1124/20.12.2012	71-75/31.03.2013
Gurdaspur	4092/20.12.2012	4522-4532/05.02.2013
Hoshiarpur	5318-27/24.12.2012	1146-1155/05.02.2013
Jalandhar	6798-6808/20.12.2012	7915-7925/31.01.2013
Kapurthala	485-489/27.12.2012 793/12.03.2013	392-96/31.01.2013 1182/12.04.2013
Ludhiana	70-81/03.01.2013	1344-1355/13.03.2013
District	No. and Date of initial Notification	No. and Date of final Notification
Mansa	7202, 7322, 7363/20.12.2012	482-486/31.01.2013
Muktsar	20.12.2012	23-26/31.01.2013
Moga	20-23/27.12.2012 27/28.12.2012	91-95/19.02.2013
SBS Nagar	6781, 6781-6783, 6785/20.12.2012	355-359/31.01.2013
Patiala	6870-6892/20.12.2012	534-544/31.01.2013
Pathankot	2222-27/25.12.2012	208-213/29.01.2013
Ropar	da/wardbandi/5686- 90/20.12.2012	712-716/31.01.2013
Sangrur	7036-7045/20.12.2012	490-99/31.01.2013
Mohali	20.12.2012	419/30.01.2013
Tarn Taran	173-177/15.01.2013 185-187/22.01.2013	483, 485-489/13.02.2013 610/21.02.2013, 625/26.02.2013

8. It is stated that the process of Wardbandi, reservation rotation and other pre-election activities are defined under the Act for which powers have been given to different executive authorities and accordingly the Deputy Commissioners were given the powers of formulation of wards in the Gram Sabha area. The State Government issued notification on 03.09.2012 u/s. 209 of the Act by which the Punjab State Election Commission was requested to hold the General Election of all three Panchayati Raj Institutions i.e. Zila Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and Gram Panchayats. The said notification is reproduced as under:-

“Government of Punjab Department of Rural Development & Panchayats

Notification the 3rd September, 2012

No.P.A./9/94/S.209/2012/3862.- In exercise the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 209 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Punjab Act No.9 of 1994) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that the general election of the members of the Panchayat Samitis, Zila Parishads shall be held by the 15th May 2013 and the general election of the members of the Gram Panchayats shall be held by 31st May, 2013.

Mandeep Singh Sandhu, Chandigarh the Financial Commissioner and 29th August, 2013 Secretary to Government of Punjab Department of Rural Development & Panchayats.”

It is pleaded that the State Election Commission vide letter No.SEC-SA-20/779 dated 19.02.2013, has also duly certified that the Wardbandi of the villages has been completed by 31.01.2013 and accordingly, revised programme for preparation/revision electoral rolls was announced.

9. The State Election Commission, Punjab (respondent No.3) filed its separate reply in which it was averred that the State Election Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the formulation of Wardbandi of Gram Sabha which is the forte of the State Government. It is further averred that the State Election Commission has set out the election process for holding the elections of Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads, issued instructions on 18.04.2013 and revised notification dated 03.05.2013, in continuation a memo dated 25.04.2013 was issued to the Additional District Electoral Officers in the State of Punjab for making necessary preparations and with the issuance of the said instructions, the Actual election process of Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad shall be set into motion on 03.05.2013. The election programme for the election of Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads in the State of Punjab notified by the State Election Commission, Punjab, on 26.04.2013 is as under:-

“PROGRAMME

(a) 30th April, 2013 (Tuesday) as the last date for making nominations;

(b) 2nd May, 2013 (Thursday) as the date for the Scrutiny of nominations;

(c) 3rd May, 2013 (Friday) as the last date for withdrawal of candidatures;

(d) 12th May, 2013 (Sunday) as the date on which a poll shall, if necessary be taken and;

(e) 15th May, 2013 (Wednesday) as the date by which the election shall be completed. Note: (1) 27th April, 2013 is not a holiday u/s. 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as such the nominations will be received on that day.

(2) Counting of votes will start at 8.00 A.M. on 14th May, 2013 and shall be completed on the same day.”

The aforesaid programme was re-scheduled vide notification dated 03.05.2013, which is reproduced as under:-

“PROGRAMME

(a) 7th May, 2013 (Tuesday) as the last date for making nominations;

(b) 8th May, 2013 (Wednesday) as the date for the Scrutiny of nominations;

(c) 9th May, 2013 (Thursday) as the last date for withdrawal of candidatures;

(d) 19th May, 2013 (Sunday) as the date on which a poll shall, if necessary be taken and;

(e) 21st May, 2013 (Tuesday) as the date on which Results will be declared;

(e) 23rd May, 2013 (Tuesday) as the date by which the election shall be completed. Note: (1) 4th May, 2013 is not a holiday u/s. 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as such the nominations will be received on that day.

(2) Counting of votes will start at 8.00 A.M. on 21st May, 2013.”

10. The petitioner filed its replication to the reply filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in which emphasis has been laid on the issue of maintaining the writ petition by the petitioner as a political party and regarding the non-disclosure of house numbers in the process of Wardbandi.

An additional affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 alleging that there was enough publicity about the process of Wardbandi. Despite the fact that there was no statutory requirement to do so, the Deputy Commissioners had issued press releases about the ongoing process of Wardbandi which were published in the newspapers. The newspaper clippings relating to various districts were also annexed. It was reiterated that no house number is allotted at the administrative level in the rural areas in the State of Punjab. However, houses are listed in order of serial numbers for exercises such as census operations or for preparation of voter list for the Assembly Constituencies. During the census operations, an enumerator can start from any point in a village and number the houses falling within his census block and while preparing the voter lists for the Assembly Constituencies, the members of one family unit are assigned one number which is categorized as house number but the house numbers as indicated in the said voter list do not necessarily imply that they are contiguous also. In the rural areas whenever the voters lists are updated, the new households that have come into existence, irrespective of their location in the village, are added at the end of the existing voter list without any reference to their geographical location in the village and are automatically assigned a house number next to the last house number listed in the voter list. Form I for making a Claim application for inclusion of name in electoral roll, appended to the Act, is also attached to highlight that the particulars of the place of residence mentions only village, post office, Police Station/Tehsil and District but the house number is conspicuously absent. As against that, in Form 7, for making a Claim Application for inclusion of Name, appended to the Act, in the particulars of the place of residence there is a column for house number apart from Street/Mohalla, Town and District. In this regard, Form I and Form 7 are reproduced as under for the ready reference:-

“FORM-I

[See rule 6(1)(a)]

Claim application for inclusion of name in the electroal roll

The District Electroal Officer, …………………………………..

I request that my name be included in the electroal roll for the Gram Sabha/constituency ………. relating to …………..

My name (in full) ………………. Sex ………………………

My Father’s/Mother’s/Husband’s name ………………….. Particulars of my place of residence are — Village ……………… Post Office ………………………… Police Station/Tehsil …………………… District ………….

I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief:-

(i) I am a citizen of India;

(ii) My age on the first day of January/last was ………. year and …………….. months;

(iii) I am ordinarily resident at the address given above;

(iv) I have not applied for the inclusion of my name in the electoral roll for any other Gram Sabha area/Constituency;

(v) My name has not been included in the electoral roll for this or any other Gram Sabha/ Constituency;

Signature or thumb impression of claimant

The application in Form I of Shri/Shrimati/Kumari ………………………., address ………………. has been:-

(a) accepted and his/her name has been included in the electoral roll, vide Serial No…………;

(b) Rejected for the reason ………………………………… ………………………………………………………………. Electoral Registration Officer,

Date: ……………. (Address) ………………………………… …………………….. (Perforation) ……………………………..

RECEIPT OF APPLICATION

Received the application in Form I from Shri/Shrimati/Kumari ………………. Address ……………. Electoral Registration Officer or Officer nominated by him

Dated ………………… (Address) ………………………….”

“FORM 7

See rules 14(1) and 27

CLAIM APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF NAME

The Electoral Registration Officer, …………. Constituency ……….. Municipality.

Sir,

I request that my name be included in the electoral roll for the above constituency; in part No……………

My name (in full) ……………………. Sex ………………..

My father’s Mother’s/Husband’s name …………………….

Particulars of my place of residence are ………………….

House No……………………….

Street/Mohalla ………………..

Town …………………………… ……………………………………

District ………………………….

I, hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief:-

(i) I am a citizen of India;

(ii) My age on the first day of January last was ………… year and ……………….. months.

(iii) I am ordinarily resident at the address given above;

(iv) I have not applied for the inclusion of my name in the electoral roll for any other constituency;

(v) My name has not been included in the electoral roll for this or any other constituency;

My name may have been included in the electoral roll in …………….. Constituency of ………………. Municipality in which I was ordinarily resident of earlier at the address mentioned below and if so, I request that the same may be excluded from that electoral roll.

Place …………………. ………………….

Date ………………….. ………………….

Signature of thumb impression of claimant

I am an elector in the electoral roll in which the claimant applied for inclusion and my name is enrolled at Serial No……… in Part No……. of the roll. I support this claim and countersign it.

Signature of the elector Name (in full) ………………………….

Intimation of action taken

The application in Form 7 of Shri/Shrimati/Kumari ………………….. address …………………… has been

(a) (accepted and his/her name has been included in the electroal roll, vide serial No……… in part No.(b) rejected for the reason ……………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………

Date…………. Electoral Registration Officer

(Address) ……………………….. (Perforation) ……………………….. Receipt for application

Received the application in Form from Shri/Shrimati/Kumari ……………. Address ……………….

Date: …………………..

Electoral Registration Officer (Address) ……………………..”

11. A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner to the additional affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to contradict the averments made in the additional affidavit with regard to the publicity and that no house numbers are allotted to the houses in the Gram Sabha and the final Wardbandi notification dated 31.01.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib for blocks Khera, Bassi Pathana, Sirhind, Amloh and Khamanon is showing the house numbers.

12. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, it is argued by Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that in S. 10 of the un-amended Act, there was no provision of wards as the number of Panches were to be elected in the Gram Sabha on the basis of its population because the Gram Sabha was considered to be a multi-members single constituency, but after the amendment of S. 10 by the Amendment Act, the Gram Sabha area is divided into such number of wards correlating with the number of Panches according to the population indicated in the table provided in S. 10 (1C) of the Amendment Act and the wards were required to be constituted with geographical contiguity having same population, as far as possible throughout the Gram Sabha area. The procedure is provided for formulation of wards in Section 10-A of the Amendment Act. It is submitted by him that the wards have not been formulated on the basis of geographical contiguity as no house numbers have been shown in the notification of the proposed Wardbandi. In this regard, he has referred to the notification dated 21.01.2013 wherein, for example, in the Gram Sabha Ahmedpura, Ward No.1 is proposed to have been constituted “starting from the house of Darshan Singh son of Makhan Singh to the house of Sonu son of Sukha Singh”. He has further submitted that this proposal is vague and misleading as a simple villager would fail to decipher about the portion of the village abadi forming a particular ward. This kind of proposal does not indicate as to whether the ward is in a straight-line, circle, square or rectangle and until and unless the house number is mentioned in the proposed wardbandi, the Actual geographical contiguity cannot be ascertained. In addition to this, he has also submitted that in Section 10-A of the Amendment Act, the procedure has been provided to file objections against the proposed wardbandi but in the absence of house numbers included in a particular ward, the filing of objections is reduced to a formality being illusory in nature. He has also submitted that S. 28 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, lays down the rule making power of the Central Government which includes the preparation of the electoral rolls and Rule 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, provides that the names of the elector in each part of the roll shall be arranged according to the house number. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court, while expanding the scope of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Indiapertaining to the freedom of speech and expression has held that it includes voter’s right to know as well and any suppression of information, mis-information and dis-information because of non- disclosure of house number in the wards is violative of the Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He further argued that since the elections of the Legislative Assembly and the Panchayats are held on the basis of constitutional mandates, therefore, the same procedure should be followed in case of wardbandi as well. It is, thus, submitted that S. 10 of the Amendment Act is ultra vires to the Constitution of India due to lack of information to the voter, that is without giving house number of the voters. In support of his submission, he has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another, (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 294 2002 Indlaw SC 308 and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another v. Union of India and another, (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 399 2003 Indlaw SC 290.

13. The second submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the power of deciding objections given to the Deputy Commissioners is not proper because being an Executive Officer, they could always succumb to the pressure of the ruling party while deciding the objections. He submitted that the power of formation of wards should vest with the Election Commission. In this regard, he has also referred to the provisions of the De-limiation Act, 1972 and theDe-limitation Act, 2002. As per S. 3 of the De-limitation Act, 2002, a three members Commission is formed which includes a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court as the Chairperson besides the Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner nominated by the Chief Election Commissioner and the State Election Commissioner of the concerned State as ex-officio members. In this regard, he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of In the matter of Special Reference No.1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 237 2002 Indlaw SC 1851.

14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there was no proper publication much-less advertisement regarding proposed formation of wards because of which the people were deprived of their valuable right of preferring objections within time. He has further submitted that, though it is not admitted but for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that the notification of the proposed formation of wards was published and pasted in terms of Section 10-A of the Amendment Act, no site plan was shown or made available to people at large by which they could have filed objections effectively.

15. Learned Senior counsel, while making his submissions, has referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Kuldip Nayar and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1 2006 Indlaw SC 432, Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 352 2006 Indlaw SC 1413, Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar and others, (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 50 2001 Indlaw SC 20210, Lakshmi Charan Sen and others v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1233 1985 Indlaw SC 232, Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 351 1977 Indlaw SC 53, Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P. And others, (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 303 1991 Indlaw ALL 366, K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and others v. Union of India and another, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 202 2010 Indlaw SC 377, I.R. Coelho (dead) by Lrs. v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 2007 Indlaw SC 12, M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 212 2006 Indlaw SC 722, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Terah v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1133 1985 Indlaw SC 474, Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 111 1985 Indlaw SC 264, Rama Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 438 1993 Indlaw SC 1081, and some judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Charles W. Baker et al. v. Joe C. Carr et al., 369 US 186, Susan J. Davis et al., v. Irwin C. Bandemer et al., 478 US 109, and B.A. Reynolds, etc., et. al. v. M.O. SIMS et. al.(No.23), 377 US 533, in order to canvas the various concepts of democracy. We shall deal with all these judgments in the later part of our judgment.

However, in reply, learned State counsel has submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition because there are 13100 villages in the State of Punjab and as per the revised programme of the Panchayat elections, the date for final publication of the electoral roll was 04.04.2013, whereas the writ petition has been filed on 16.04.2013. He has further submitted that the formation of wards is a big exercise because the Gram Panchayat with minimum wards has to be of 5 members and if 13100 villages are to be multiplied with 5, it comes to 65500, which otherwise stated to be more than 80000. The process of formation of wards had started in the month of December, 2012, with involvement of huge manpower and financial resources. Thereafter, even the process of preparation of electoral roll has also been over which is undertaken by the State Election Commission and the elections have been declared u/art. 209 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner at this stage would upset the whole process and delay the elections which has to be conducted within a prescribed period i.e. after the expiry of 5 years from the date of first meeting which was held in the first week of July, 2008.

It is next argued that the proposal for formation of wards is based upon the boundaries of the houses as there is no house number in the villages. The houses are recognized by the name of the owner or its location. He further submitted that due publicity was given about the proposed formation of wards by way of notification as well as affixation in the office of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Development and Panchayat Officer and the concerned Gram Panchayat. Attracted by the proposed wardbandi, the Competent Authority has received 6231 objections, out of which 2922 were corrected and 3309 were dismissed. It is further argued that as per Rule 6(1)(a), Form I, there is no reference of any house number in the form which is otherwise provided in Form No.7 in the case of municipalities. It is also urged that geographical contiguity is though provided in the statute but it is not a feature of the Constitution because in Art. 243(C) of the Constitution of India, only the population of the territorial area has to be considered and not the geographical contiguity. It is further submitted that as per Art. 81(2), Second Proviso, the constituencies were formed on the basis of population and not on the basis of geographical contiguity. Even otherwise, it is submitted that all precaution has been taken in maintaining the geographical contiguity but the house which were scattered in the villages like the persons who are living in their farm houses outside the abadi and lal dora, they were also made part of the wards in order to give them a chance to elect their representatives. Learned State counsel has further argued that as per Rule 9 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, a voter can contest from any ward for which he has to be an elector from the Sabha Area which forms many wards and for that matter, formation of ward would not affect his right of free and fair election.

16. The next submission of the learned State counsel is that there is a bar of challenging the law of de-limitation in the Court of law in terms of Art. 243(O) of theConstitution of India. In this regard, he has referred to the Anugrah Narain Singh’s case1991 Indlaw ALL 366 (supra), Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India and others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 228 2010 Indlaw SC 941 and N.P.Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, AIR(39) 1952 Supreme Court 64 1952 Indlaw SC 117.

17. The next submission of the learned State Counsel is that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as a political party, may be registered with the Election Commission, as it cannot lay challenge to the process of formation of wardbandi which could be a grievance of an individual. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen’s case1985 Indlaw SC 232 (supra), Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 669 1966 Indlaw SC 173 and Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others, (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 6911982 Indlaw SC 110.

18. Learned State counsel has further argued that the Court should not pass order of thwarting the election in the exercise of powers u/art. 226 of theConstitution of India, which is required to be conducted immediately. In this regard, he has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216 2000 Indlaw SC 2833, Election Commission of India v. State of Haryana, 1984 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 104 1984 Indlaw SC 145 and Lakshmi Charan Sen’s case1985 Indlaw SC 232 (supra).

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

19. The petitioner has challenged the vires of Ss. 10 and 10A of the Amendment Act. Before we proceed further to discuss and opine on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of S. 10 of the Act and Ss. 10 and 10A of the Amendment Act, which read thus:-

“10. Constitution of Gram Panchayat. (1) Every Gram Sabha shall elect from amongst its members a Gram Panchayat for the Gram Sabha area bearing the name of its Gram Sabha and consisting of a Sarpanch and such number of Panches as indicate below against each slab of population taking Gram Sabha to be a multi-member single constituency, namely: –

S.N.	Population	Number of Panches
1.	For population exceeding 200 but not exceeding 1,000	Five
2.	For population exceeding 1,000 but not exceeding 2,000	Seven
3.	For population exceeding 2,000 but not exceeding 5,000	Nine
4.	For population exceeding 5,000 but not ex ceding 10,000	Eleven
5.	For population exceeding 10,000	Thirteen

(2) Every Gram Panchayat constituted under this section shall be notified by its name In the Official Gazettee and it shall by the name so notified come office with effect from the date of its first meeting at which quorum is present and be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to any restriction by or under this Act or any other law, shall have power to acquire, hold, administer and transfer property movable or immovable, and to enter into contracts and shall by the said name sue and be sued.”

“10. Constitution of Gram Panchayat. (1) Every Gram Sabha shall elect from amongst its members a Gram Panchayat for the Gram Sabha area bearing the name of its Gram Sabha.

(1-A) A Gram Panchayat shall consist of a Sarpanch and such number of Panches as are indicated against each slab of population under sub-section (1-C).

(1-B) For the election of a Sarpanch, the Gram Sabha shall be a single member constituency.

(1-C) For the election of Panches, the Gram Sabha area shall be divided into such number of wards co-relating with the number of Panches, as are indicated below against each slab of population taking Gram Sabha area to be multi- members constituencies and such wards shall be geographically contiguous having same population, as far as possible, throughout the Gram Sabha area:-

Serial Number	Population	Number of Panches
1.	For population 300 up to 1,000	Five
2.	For population 1001 up to 2,000	Seven
3.	For population 2001 up to 5,000	Nine
4.	For population 5001 up to 10,000	Eleven
5.	For population exceeding 10,001	Thirteen

Provided that for election of Panches in respect of a Gram Panchayat of a Gram Sabha area constituted prior to the commencement of the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2012, with a population of less than three hundred, the number of Panches as determined prior to the commencement of the said Act shall remain the same and such Gram Sabha area shall be divided into wards as per such number of Panches for the purposes of election to be a multi-members constituencies.

“10-A. Formulation of wards.– (1) The Deputy Commissioner by notification published in the Official Gazette, shall propose the formulation of wards of the Gram Sabha area to be multi-members constituencies as provided under sub-section (1-C) of s. 10 and shall earmark each ward by assigning a separate serial number.

(2) The list of proposed wards shall be affixed on the Notice Board of the offices of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the District Development and Panchayat Officer and the Gram Panchayat concerned. IN case of any objections or suggestions, a person registered as voter of the Gram Sabha area may submit the same, in writing, to the office of the Deputy Commissioner concerned within a period of seven days of displaying the list of the proposed wards. On receipt of the objections or suggestions, if any, the Deputy Commissioner shall hold summary enquiry and shall record his decision thereon within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of objections and suggestions and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner thereupon shall be final.

(3) The Deputy Commissioner shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of his decision under sub- s. (2) get published the final list of wards in the Official Gazette.”

A bare perusal of S. 10 of the Act would reveal that population is the only criteria for constitution of the Gram Sabhas. Minimum number of 5 Panches were fixed for the population exceeding 200 but not exceeding 1000 and maximum number of 13 Panches were fixed for the population exceeding 10,000. With the amendment in S. 10 by the Amendment Act, the Gram Sabha, which was a multi- members single constituency, was converted into multi-members constituency by creating wards having same population as far as possible with geographical contiguity. The provision for house number in the geographical contiguity is conspicuous by its absence in S. 10 of the Amendment Act. However, in order to formulate the wards, the procedure is provided inserting Section 10-A by the Amendment Act. On the dissection of Section 10-A, it has been found that the Deputy Commissioner of the District shall propose the formulation of wards by a notification published in the official gazette and shall earmark each ward by assigning a separate serial number. The list of the proposed wards then shall be affixed on the notice board of the offices of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the District Development and Panchayat Officer and the Gram Panchayat concerned in order to invite objections or suggestions which a person, who is a registered voter of the Gram Sabha, could submit, in writing, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner concerned within 7 days of the displaying the list of the proposed wards. The Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of objections/suggestions, if any, would hold summary enquiry and record his decision thereon within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of objections/suggestions and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner shall be final. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner would, within a period of 90 days from the date of his decision, get published the final list of wards in the Official Gazette.

20. A somewhat similar procedure is provided in the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994. In Rule 4, word “compactness of houses” is used instead of geographical contiguity and the same procedure has been provided only with the exception that the order of the Circle Revenue Officer would not be final and it could be challenged by way of an appeal. Rule 4 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994, is reproduced here as under for the ready reference:-

“4. Matters to be taken into consideration in formation of wards-(1) Each Panchayat area shall be divided into as many wards as the number of seats for panches, in such manner that the population of each ward, as far as practicable, shall be the same throughout the sabha area.

(2) The wards in sabha area shall be demarcated keeping in view the compactness of houses on ground and similarly in the case of wards for Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads these shall be demarcated keeping in view the compactness of villages on ground as far as possible.

(3) In any ward of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad the sabha area shall, as far as possible the completely included.

(4) Every ward shall be assigned a separate serial number at each level of Panchayat.

(5) A list of wards determined under this rule shall be published by the Circle Revenue Officer in case of Gram Panchayats and by the Deputy Commissioner in case of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad. In case of Gram Panchayat the list shall be affixed on the notice boards of the offices of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Circle Revenue Officer and the Gram Panchayat and at any other conspicuous place in Sabha area. In case of Panchayat Samitis the affixation shall be on the notice boards of the offices of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and Circle Revenue officers concerned. In case of Zila Parishad the list of wards shall be affixed, on the notice board of the District Election Officer (Panchayat) as well as offices of Block Samitis and Circle Revenue Officers and other conspicuous places.

(6) Any elector of the Sabha area, Panchayat Samiti area or Zila Parishad area, as the case may be, may, if he objects to anything contained in the list affixed under sub-rule (5) submit his objection in writing to the Circle Revenue Officer concerned in his office in case of Gram Panchayat and to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned in case of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad within three days of the publication of the list of wards under sub-rule (5).

(7) On receipt of the objections, if any, the Circle Revenue Officer or the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), as the case may be, shall hold summary enquiry into every objection and shall record his decision thereon within five days from the date of its receipt.

(8) An appeal against the order of the Circle Revenue Officer shall lie before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned. The appeal against the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) shall be filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner concerned. The appeal shall be filed within three days of the passing of impugned order. The appeal shall be disposed of within a week from the date the appeal is preferred.

(9) The list of wards as finalized after decisions of appeals shall be published by the Circle Revenue Officer and Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be.”

21. The submission of the petitioner that the voter has a right to know cannot be faulted because in Union of India’s case (supra), this issue was decided by the Supreme Court by holding that right to know by the voter is covered by the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the issue was as to whether the voters, before casting their votes, would have a right to know the relevant particulars of their candidates and whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to issue directions in this regard. The question was answered in affirmative and direction was issued to the Election Commission to call for the information in affidavit from each of the candidate contesting election to Parliament and to the State Legislatures as a necessary part of the nomination paper with regard to their antecedents, assets and liabilities, educational qualification etc. This judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another’s case2003 Indlaw SC 290 (supra) wherein the validity of Section 33-B of the Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002, which was enacted following the directions contained in the judgment rendered in Union of India’s case (supra). It was held therein that “a voter is first citizen of this country and apart from statutory rights, he is having fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution. Members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed so that they may cast their votes intelligently in favour of persons who are to govern them. Right to vote would be meaningless unless the citizens are well informed about the antecedents of a candidate. There can be little doubt that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest means to cleanse our democratic governing system and to have competent legislatures”.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking support from this judgment, has submitted that regard should have been had to house numbers at the time of proposing the wards instead of forming the wards in the present manner and because of the lack of the information, proper objections could not have been filed but at the same time he has admitted that the petitioner has not placed on record any particular instance much- less the objections indicating the grievance of a voter who alleged to have been mislead because of non-provision of house numbers in the formation of wards. It has been categorically stated by the respondents that no house number is allotted at the administrative level in the rural areas of the State of Punjab, however, houses are listed in order of serial number for the purpose of census operations for preparation of voter lists for the Assembly Constituencies as the enumerators, during the census operations, starts from any point in a village and number the houses falling within their census block and while preparing the voter lists for the Assembly Constituencies, the members of one family unit are assigned one number which is categorized as house number, which is neither in continuity nor in contiguity. Secondly, Article 243-C of theConstitution of India only provides for population to be taken into consideration at the time of formation of wards and not the geographical contiguity.

We are in full agreement with the contention of the learned State counsel that in certain circumstances, it is not possible to maintain the exact contiguity because some house are located in the farms/dhanis which are placed at a distance from the last houses of the proposed ward, but in order to give them a representation in the Panchayat, those houses are also required to be included and in that process the geographical contiguity is generally broken.

23. Insofar as the second submission of the petitioner is concerned that the power of deciding objections should not have been given to the Deputy Commissioner and for that matter, he has referred to the provisions of the De-limitation Act, 2002 to contend that the work of de-limitation is to be discharged by a multi-member Commission which is an independent body unlike the Deputy Commissioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court In the matter of Special Reference No.1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), which was a Presidential reference, in which three questions were put by the President of India to the Supreme Court for consideration and report, namely, as to whether Art. 174 subject to the decision of the Election Commission of India u/art. 324 as to the schedule of elections of the Assembly; can the Election Commission of India frame a schedule for the elections to an Assembly on the premise that any infraction of the mandate of Art. 174 would be remedied by a resort to Art. 356 by the President; and is the Election Commission of India under a duty to carry out the mandate of Art. 174 of the Constitution, by drawing upon all the requisite resources of the Union and the State to ensure free and fair elections.

Mr. Gupta has referred to para 75 of this judgment to contend that the election machinery should be outside the control of the executive. His concern is for a free and fair elections for which he also read para 80 of this judgment in which it has been held that “democracy can indeed function only upon the faith that elections are free and fair and not rigged and manipulated, that they are effective instruments of ascertaining popular will both in reality and form and are not mere rituals calculated to generate illusion of defence to mass opinion”.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that he has not alleged any mala fide on the part of anyone nor could be show from his pleadings that the Deputy Commissioner, while exercising his executive powers in deciding the objections filed by any voter with regard to formation of wards, has acted unfairly much-less under the influence of the ruling party. Thus, we do not agree with the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is accordingly rejected.

24. Insofar as the due publication by way of advertisement is concerned, the petitioner has alleged that neither the notification nor its substance was duly affixed at the place as mentioned in S. 10(1-C) of the Amendment Act. Otherwise, it has been stated on affidavit by the respondents that due publication was given in various newspapers which they have mentioned in the rejoinder and as many as 6231 objections were received, out of which 2922 were allowed and 3309 were dismissed. This figure indicates that the proposal of formation of wards was very well within the knowledge of the voters who had exercised their statutory right and out of the total objections filed, half of the objectors were successful. Thus, we do not agree with this contention of the petitioner as well and the same is accordingly rejected.

We have said in the earlier part of our order that the petitioner has cited many judgments during the course of hearing and we would discuss each one of them accordingly.

25. The case of Kuldeep Nayar and others2006 Indlaw SC 432 (supra) has been cited to plead that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. There is not dispute about that. However, in the said case, the question was as to whether an elector to the Rajya Sabha should necessarily belong to the State concern and it was held that it is not so necessary because the residence is not the essence of the structure of the Upper House.

26. In Kishansing Tomar’s case2006 Indlaw SC 1413 (supra), the issue was as to whether the elections to the local bodies should be held within time or not? Holding that Article 243-U is mandatory, it was made incumbent upon Election Commission and other authorities to carry out the mandate of the Constitution and to see that a new municipality is constituted in time and elections to a municipality are conducted before expiry of its duration of five years and the State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds, and not yield to situations created by vested interests to postpone elections. If a revision of electoral rolls is not carried out in time, the election has to be conducted on the basis of the existing electoral rolls but in exceptional circumstances of man-made calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities, the Election Commission could be justified to delay the election process.

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 22 of this judgment in which it has been held that it is necessary for all the State Governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for Parliament and the State Legislatures. He has cited this judgment to canvass the importance of the State Election Commission over and above the authority of the Deputy Commissioner which has been given in Section 10A of the Amendment Act. This judgment, to our mind, is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.

27. In Union of India and others’ case (supra), counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 49, otherwise this case pertained to the issue as to whether the Chairperson of Panchayat in Scheduled Areas, if can exclusively be from Schedules Tribes only i.e. 100% reservation, which is not the issue involved in the present case.

28. In Lakshmi Charan Sen and others’ case1985 Indlaw SC 232 (supra), para 38 has been referred to show that the petition was filed by the political parties. It was a case where the allegation was that the guidelines/instructions issued by the Chief Electoral Officer was not adhered to by the subordinate officers who had not properly demarcated the polling areas, no house to house visits were made and the names of the members of each household who had attained the age of 21 years on the prescribed date were not recorded in several cases. It was basically with regard to the irregularities committed in the electoral rolls. This case has also no relevance with the case in hand insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

29. The case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another’s case1977 Indlaw SC 53 (supra) has been cited to emphasize the civil rights, otherwise it has been held therein that the validity of an order of the statutory functionary shall be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and not by the reasons which are supplanted.

30. The cases K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and others 2010 Indlaw SC 377 (supra), I.R. Coelho (dead) by Lrs 2007 Indlaw SC 12 (supra) and M. Nagaraj and others2006 Indlaw SC 722 (supra) have been cited by the petitioner to contend that any amendment to the Constitution can be challenged on the ground of violation of the basic structure. Besides these judgments, counsel for the petitioner has also referred to three judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of B.A. Reynolds, etc., et al. (supra) wherein it has been held that “it has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote” and further that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system”.

31. In Charles W. Baker’s case (supra), counsel for the petitioner has referred to the paragraph wherein it has been held that “the right to have one’s vote counted whatever his race or nationality or creed”.

In Susan J. Davis’s case (supra), counsel for the petitioner has referred to a concept of “gerrymandering” which is “the deliberate and arbitrary distortion of district boundaries and populations for partisan or personal political purposes”. He has also referred to the observations made by Justice Stevens who has stated that “gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause only when the redistricting plan serves “no purpose other than to favour one segment whether racial, ethnic, religious, economic, or political and that may occupy a position of strength at a particular time, or to disadvantage a politically weak segment of the community”. He has also referred to the terms “gerrymandering” which is also used loosely to describe the common practice of the party in power to choose the redistricting plan that gives it an advantage at the polls.

All these judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are absolutely not applicable to the factual situation of the present case because he himself had admitted that there is no mala fide attached to anyone in the preparation of the wards. In those circumstances, the principle of “gerrymandering” cannot be invoked with a purpose to say that the formation of wards was done in such a manner which could benefit only the ruling party and is a disadvantage to the opposition. No instance has been quoted on record in this regard to persuade this Court to think otherwise.

32. On the other hand, we have found that unlike Form-7, there is no provision in Form-1, which is reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, for the house number. Once the house numbers are not given in the rural areas, the demarcation of the wards in the present circumstances on the basis of names of the owners of the houses is perfectly justified.

We are also in agreement with the respondents that they had given due publicity to the proposed wardbandi, attracted by which 6231 objections were received and those objections were duly dealt with by the Competent Authority, out of which 2922 objectors were successful and the errors committed in the formation of wards was removed.

33. There is another aspect of the matter that the petitioner has preferred the writ petition challenging the wardbandi even after the date the electoral rolls have been prepared and the election schedule has been published. It has been held in Anugrah Narain Singh and another’s case1991 Indlaw ALL 366 (supra) that “when the delimitation of the wards was made, such delimitation was not challenged on the ground of colourable exercise of power or on any other ground of arbitrariness. Any such challenge should have been made as soon as the final order was published in the Gazette after objections to the draft order were considered and not after the notification for holding of the elections was issued”. We are also in agreement of the contention of the respondents that there is a specific bar u/art. 243 of the Constitution to challenge the law with regard to delimitation which stands in the face of the petitioner. In this regard, reference could be made to the decision in Anugrah Narain Singh and another’s case1991 Indlaw ALL 366 (supra) in which it has been held that “the validity of Sections 6-A, 31, 32 and 33 of the U.P. Act dealing with delimitation of wards cannot be questioned in a court of law because of the express bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. Similarly, it has been held in Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party’s case2010 Indlaw SC 941 (supra) that “it is, therefore, clear that there is an express constitutional bar to any challenge being made to the delimitation law which is made under the Constitutional provisions. Therefore, the substantial challenge of the appellant in this proceeding is not to be entertained by any court”. He has also referred to the case in Jyoti Basi and others1982 Indlaw SC 110(supra) in which it has been held that “a right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it”.

Last but not the least, with regard to locus standi, learned State Counsel has relied upon a decision in Lakshmi Charan Sen and others’ case1985 Indlaw SC 232(supra) in which it has been held that “persons who have come to the Court are members of a political party who claim to represent them. While we are on this question, it must be emphasized that Election Laws do not recognize political parties except in rule 11(c) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and Explanation 1 to S. 77(1) of the Act of 1951. The right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge the inclusion of any name in the roll is a right conferred upon an individual and not upon any political party. The petitioners are espousing the cause of unnamed and undisclosed persons through a writ petition, which does not even claim to possess a representative capacity”.

34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, the prayers made in the writ petition are hereby declined but before parting with the order, we would like to issue certain directions for the purpose of formation of wards in future, which are as follows:-

1. The government should undertake an exercise of allotting the house numbers to all the houses in all the villages of the State of Punjab. The Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned shall maintain the record of the house numbers and keep on updating the same in case of any change in the house number occurred for any reason. Let this exercise be started after the elections and be completed within a period of one year and the status report be put up on the file of this case.

2. The exercise of delimitation of wards for the purpose of election of the Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads shall b-e undertaken with wide publicity in the electronic and print media well before the exercise is started.

3. The notification of the proposed wardbandi or its substance should not only allowed to be pasted/affixed in terms of the provisions of the statute but should also be accompanied by a coloured site plan showing formation of separate wards so that the appropriate opportunity could be availed of by the voters for the purpose of filing objections.

4. The Deputy Commissioner or the Competent Authority, who has to decide the objections, shall decide the objections by passing a well reasoned order reflecting his/her application of mind.

5. We also request the State of Punjab to enhance the period of filing the objections which is at present only 7 days from the date of proposal because after the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, 90 days period has been fixed for the purpose of publication of final notification. With these observations, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed

Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee v State of Punjab and others

Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee v State of Punjab and others

Share this:

Like this: