SOM LAL versus VIJAY LAXMI & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 49 
SOM LAL 
A 
v. 
VIJAY LAXMI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5104 of 2006) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
B 
r 
(A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act 19 of 
1994): 
ss. 11 (f) and (g) - Panchayat Election - Election of c 
Sarpanch - Disqualifications - Office of profit - Returned 
candidate stated to be holding office of profit under Agricultural 
Marketing Board - HELD: Act 19 of 1994 being later in point 
of time than Act 9 of 1994, disqualifications enumerated in 
s. 11 would prevail and not those mentioned fn s. 208 of Act 9 D 
of 1994 which are inconsistent to s. 11 of Act 19of1994 - Since 
returned candidate did not incur disqualification. ~s per sub-
sections (f) and (g) of s.11, Election Tribunal and High Court 
wrongly held him to be disqualified - Orders of Election 
Tribunal and High Court set aside - Punjab Panchayati Raj E 
Act, 1994 (Act 9 of 1994) - s. 208. 
ss. 142 and 143 - Over-riding effect, repeal and saving 
-
Office of profit -
Disqualification for membership of 
Panchayat enumerated in sub-sections (f) and (g)of s.11. of 
Act 19 of 1994 and s.208 of Act 9 of 1994 - HELD: Act 19 of F 
1994 being subsequent in point of time, in view of over-riding 
effect given to provisions thereof and the provisions of repeal 
and saving, disqualifications mentioned in s.208 of Act 9 of 
1994 which are consistent with sub-sections (f) and (g) of s. 11 
of 1994 can only survive and not other disqualifications -
G 
Interpretation of statutes - Repeal by implication - Intention 
of Legislature . 
..... 
The appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch of 
49 
H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
·• 
A the Gram Panchayat concerned on 24.6.2003. His election 
was challenged by the respondent, who had secured the 
second highest number of votes. It was stated that in view 
of the disqualifications prescribed in s.208(1)(g) of the 
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (the Punjab Act 9 of 1994) 
B laying down that a person being a whole-time salaried 
employee of any local authority, statutory Corporation or 
Board or a Co-operative Society, or of the State 
Government or th1~ Central Government would be 
disqualified to become member of a Panchayat, the 
c appellant being an employee in the Agricultural Marketing 
Board, was disqualified. The stand of the appellant was 
that as per ss. 11 (f) and (g) of the Punjab State Election 
Commission Act, 1994 (the Punjab Act 19 of 1994) which 
·came into force subsequent to the Punjab Act 9of1994, a 
D person would be disqualified only if he "holds an office 
of profit" under a Panchayat or a Municipality or under 
the Government of India or any State Government, and 
not for holding such office under any other local authority 
or Corporation or Board much less the State Agricultural 
E 
Marketing Board. Both the Election Tribunal and the High 
Court held the appellant as disqualified. The election of 
the appellant was set aside and the respondent was 
declared as elected to the office of Sarpanch. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
F appellant that in view of the provisions of ss.142 an 143 
of the Punjab Act ·19 of 1994, which was later in point of 
time and the repea1I being specific, the provisions of s.11 
thereof would have overriding effect vis-a-vis the 
provisions of s.208 of the Punjab Act 9 of 1994. For the 
G respondent it was submitted that there was no express 
J
repeal of the provisions of s.208 of the Punjab Act 9 of 
1994 and, therefore, both the Acts should be construed 
harmoniously giving full effect to the provisions of s.208 
~r 
of the Punjab Act 9 of 1994 as well. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
•
SOM LAL v. VIJAY LAXMI & ORS. 
51 
1-
HELD: 1.1 It is a fact that the Punjab Act 19 of 1994 A 
came into effect on 19.9.1994 and definitely is later in point 
of time than the Punjab Act 9 of 1994 which had been 
made effective from 21.4.1994. Under Section 11 (f) and 
(g) of Act 19 of 1994 the disqualifications have been 
/' 
prescribed. Though similar disqualifications existed under B 
Section 208 of the Act of 9 of 1994 but subsequently the 
legislature in its wisdom has reduced the disqualifications 
and confined the same only as to a person holding office 
of profit under a Panchayat or a Municipality or under the 
Government of India or any State Government. Thus, the c 
legislature in its wisdom has not considered it proper to 
continue with the disqualification of being an employee 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.