JUDGMENT
R.S. Mongia and S.C. Datta, JJ.
1. Petitioner Balbir Singh and respondent No. 4 Ram Dayal were the only two candidates for election as a Sarpanch of village Manakpur Nanakchand, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. The nomination papers of’both the contestants were rejected under section 175(j) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994, (hereinafter called the Act). Section 175(j) of the Act deals with disqualifications for election as a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat. Section 175(1)(j) which is relevant for the purposes of this case, reads as under:-
“(1) No person shall be a Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or a member or a Panchayat Satniti or Zila Parishad or continue as suchwho-
(i) is servant of Government or a servant of any Local Authority.”
The petitioner is working as a mechanic in the Punjab Tractors Limited, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, District Ropar, (Punjab) which is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. The nomination paper of the petitioner, as observed above, was rejected on the ground that he is an employee of a Local Authority. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he is not an employee of the Local Authority as defined under the Act. Local Authority has been defined under section 2(xxxiii) of the Act and reads as under:-
“Local Authority means a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Municipal Committee, Co-operative Society, Market Society, Improvement Trust, Cantonment Board, Urban Development Authority, Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad, a Board or Company or Corporation financed or aided by Central or State Government.”
It is not the case of the respondent-State of Haryana that Punjab Tractors Limited, which is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, is financed or aided by the Central Government or the State Government. If the company or the Corporation is not financed or aided by the Central or the State Government, it would not fall under the definition of Local Authority as reproduced above. Under section 2(xxvii) of the Act the word Government has been defined to mean the Government of the State of Haryana. That being so, the petitioner could not be said to be an employee of a Local Authority as defined under the Act Accordingly, his nomination paper could not have been rejected.
2. Consequently, we allow this Writ Petition and hold that the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner was not valid and in accordance with law. The order dated December 5, 1994, (Annexure P-1) rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is hereby quashed.
3. The Returning Officer, respondent No. 3 is directed to proceed in accordance with law regarding the election of the Sarpanch in view of this judgment. The direction be carried out within two weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order.
4. It may be noticed here that respondent No. 4 had not put in appearance on February 1, 1995, despite service. He was ordered to be proceeded again ex-parte. Even today nobody has put in appearance on his behalf.