Notices issued on Taranjeet’s petition
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 27: High Court has held that Rule 108-ZO of J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 is not in conformity with Section 53 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act of 1989.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar has held this while dealing with a petition filed by Taranjeet Singh, Member DDC Jammu through Senior Advocate K S Johal with Advocate Karman Singh Johal.
Rule 108-ZO, which provides an appeal against the election of Members, Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the District Development Council, was assailed in the petition being ultra vires the provisions of Section 43 of J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989.
It was contended that Article 243-O of Constitution of India creates a bar on the interference by the Courts in Electoral mattes and provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an Election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State.
To the similar effect is the provision of Section 43 of the Act of 1989 which also provides that election to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any other Member of the District Development Council can be called in question by an aggrieved person by filing an application before the authority and in such manner as may be prescribed.
“Impugned Rule 108-ZO of Rules 1996 instead of providing for Election petition, makes a provision for filing of appeal against the Election as such the same be declared ultra vires the Act of 1989 and the prescribed Authority i.e Additional Commissioner, Jammu in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Jammu be restrained from proceeding further in the appeal filed by respondent No.6 against the Election of the petitioner as Member of District Development Council of District Jammu”, the counsel for the petitioner said.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar said, prima facie, the impugned Rule is not in conformity with Section 43 of the Act of 1989. The election of a Member or Chairman/Vice-Chairman of District Development Council can be called in question on the grounds mentioned in Section 43 of the Act of 1989 and the grounds of challenge mentioned in the said Section would invariably involve the adjudication of disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the election petition cannot be tried as an appeal where despite variance in the pleadings, the issues are not struck and the parties are not permitted to lead evidence. Be that as it is, all these issues require debate and final adjudication”.
Accordingly, High Court issued notices to the respondents. “Till next date before the Bench, it is provided that the Additional Commissioner, Jammu i.e., the Appellate Authority under the impugned Rule may continue the proceedings, but shall not pass the final order(s)”, High Court directed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel