JUDGMENT
S.D. Agarwala, C.J. and H.S. Bedi, J.
1. Election to the Gram Panchayat, Walipur were held on January 20, 1993. As no lady had contested for the office of Panch, co-option of two lady Panches was required to be made as per Section 6(4) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana-II, accordingly issued a letter dated February 1, 1993 Annexure P-l to the petition, calling upon the Panches to meet on February 9, 1993 to co-opt two lady Panches. It has been averred in the writ petition that the co-option of the lady Panches was required to be made in the manner provided by Rules 6 and 7 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Co option of Panches) Rules. 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Co-option Rules) ft appears that the petitioner and one Baljinder Kaur were proposed and seconded in the meeting held on February 9, 1993 but despite the procedure having been complied with and though Baljinder Kaur was declared to have been co-opted, the petitioner was not so declared and respondent No. 3 instead issued a fresh notice for making a fresh co-option on February 16, 1993 A copy of this notice has been annexed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been riled claiming that once the co-option had been validly made on the February 9, 1993, a second co-option could not be ordered subsequently.
2. Separate replies have been filed, one on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and the other by the added respondents. The stand of respondents No. I to a is that in the co-option held on February 9, 1993, Kartar Chand, Panch proposed the name of Smt. Baljinder Kaur and the said proposal was seconded by Gurbans Singh, Sarpanch. Similarly, Kulwant Kaur, petitioner No. 1 was proposed and seconded by Mohinder Singh and Kabul Singh, Panches whereas Shakuntala Devi was proposed by Bhola Paul but not seconded by anyone. It has been admitted that Baljinder Kaur was accordingly held to have been co-opted but no reason has been spelt out as to why petitioner No. 1 had been left out. In the reply filed by the added respondents, the stand taken is somewhat different. It has been pointed out that prior to the election to the Panchayat an agreement had been arrived at between the contending parties that the election as also the subsequent co option, if any, was to be made unanimously but at the stage of co-option, Mohinder Singh and Kabul Singh, Panches resiled from the agreement and proposed the name of Kulwant Kaur ignoring that of Shakuntala Devi. It has, however, been admitted that the name of Shakuntala was not seconded by anybody although an explanation has been tendered which will be dealt with later.
3. The fate of the case hinges on the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of Co-option rules, which read as under : –
“6. Method of Co-option – (1) At the time and place appointed for co-option of Panches, the Presiding Officer shall ask the Panches present to propose and second the names of members of Gram Sabha qualified to be elected as Panches, as candidates for co-option and shall write dawn in the Proceeding Book the name of each candidate along with the name of the proposed and seconded and shall obtain signatures or thumb mark of the proposed and seconded against the name of the candidate : ‘ Provided that Panch shall not propose or second more than one candidate for co-option.
(2) After all the names have been proposed, the Presiding Officer shall read out to the Panches the names of the candidate and hear objections, if any, raised by the Panches against the eligibility of proposed candidates for being co-opted as Panch. The Presiding Officer shall also satisfy himself from the electoral roll of the Punjab Legislative Assembly pertaining to the Sabha area whether the names of the candidates find mention therein or not. In case a candidate is found to be disqualified to be elected as Panch under Section 6 or Section 102 his candidature shall be rejected and reasons for rejection, shall be recorded in the Proceedings book in writing the Presiding Officer shall then read out to the Panches present the name of the candidate who, after scrutiny, are found to have been rightly proposed for being co opted as Panches
7. Declaration of co-option of Panches –
(1) If the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of Panches to be co-opted the Presiding Officer shall declare such candidates to have been co-opted.
(2) If such candidates are more than the number of Panches to be co-opted, the co-option shall be made by the Panches present by show of hands and the requisite number of candidates getting the support of highest number of Panches shall be declared co-opted by the Presiding Officer. In case of the two or more candidates getting the support of equal number of Panches, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith decided by lot and declare the candidate on whom lot falls to have been co-opted as Panch.”
4. It would be clear from the reading of the afore-quoted rules that the co-option of the two lady Panches was required to be done in one and the same meeting and no piece-meal co-option could take place. As the petitioner, Kulwant Kaur and Baljinder Kaur were the only two validly nominated candidates, they ought to have been declared as co-opted as per Rule 7 and as such the second meeting fixed for co-option of the second lady Panch could not have been held
5. Mr Toor, learned counsel for the added respondents has further argued on the basis of the written statement filed by him that the Presiding Officer did not let Kartar Chand second the name of Shakuntala Devi on the ground that he had already proposed the name of Baljinder Kaur. He has relied on the proviso to Rule 6 of the rules, quoted above and has urged that a Panch was entitled to propose one person/candidate for co-option and to second another one, and the Presiding Officer was, therefore, in error in not permitting Kartar Chand to second the name of Shakuutala Devi. We have considered this argument as well and find no merit in it. A bare reading of the proviso makes it dear that the Panch who proposes a candidate for co option cannot second another one and a Panch who seconds a candidate cannot propose another one. In other words, once a panch had either proposed or seconded any candidate for co-option, the power to propose or second another candidate exhausted itself. This View finds support from the proviso to Rule 6 which says that a Panch shall not propose or second more than one candidate for co-option. This interpretation serves a larger purpose as it would enable ladies belonging to different groups ‘ in the Sabha area to take their chance in seeking co-option.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ, petition is allowed, Annexure P-2 is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to declare Kulwant Kaur as a co-opted lady Panch. There will be no order as to costs.