Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Punjab State Election Commission & Ors on 29 October, 2014
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14876 of 2013 (O & M)
Date of decision:29.10.2014
Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Election Commission through its Secretary and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate,
for respondents No.3 and 4.
***
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioner has sought quashing of order dated July 10, 2013 passed by respondent No.1 whereby election of Gram Panchayat village Jaur Singh Wala, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, was cancelled and fresh election was ordered to be held on July 12, 2013. Petitioner has assailed the order primarily on the ground that after declaration of the result in Form No.IX neither Election Commission nor any other authority could order re-poll for the concerned Gram Panchayat. According to him, such action would not have any sanctity of law. He has relied upon judgment reported as Malkit Kaur versus Jatinder Kaur and others, (Civil Appeal No.4926 of 2000) dated November 20, 2001.
This plea has been vehemently opposed by Mr. V. Ramswaroop, learned Addl.A.G., Punjab. According to him, petitioner has merely relied upon unsigned documents. Pursuant to election, no notification was in SUKHPREET KAUR 2014.10.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14876 of 2013 (O & M) ::2::
fact issued. He has also referred to the stand taken by the State in its affidavit, according to which, petitioner has placed reliance only on certain typed pages showing names of winning candidates. No such document was ever signed by the competent authority. On merits, he has submitted that after election was conducted, it was found that counting was conducted at a place which was not notified for the purpose. There was, thus, no option left with the authority except to cancel the election and order re-poll.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has taken a stand in similar terms.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears elections to Gram Panchayat, village Jaur Singh Wala, were held on July 03, 2013 and counting took place on same day. Petitioner claims that he secured 418 votes in the election while Paramjit Singh and Kabil Singh secured 270 and 170 votes each. According to him, result was declared in Form No.IX on the same day. On July 10, 2013, order, Annexure P-2, was issued. It was stated in the order that after serious consideration, Commission had come to the conclusion that election of Gram Panchayat, village Jaur Singh Wala needed to be rescinded and a re-poll would be held on July 12, 2013.
Aggrieved petitioner filed the present petition.
At the time of issuance of notice of motion, this court stayed operation of order dated July 10, 2013. The question which arises for consideration is whether Commission was entitled to issue order, Annexure P-2 to annul the election and order re-poll. Stand of the petitioner is that after declaration of result in Form No.IX, the Commission or any other authority had lost the right to cancel the election and order re-poll. Stand of the State is, however, that no notification was ever issued. There is no order on record to show that result of the election was duly SUKHPREET KAUR 2014.10.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.14876 of 2013 (O & M) ::3::
notified. Document, Annexure P-1, relied upon by the petitioner does not bear the signatures of any competent authority. Besides, after polling, counting has to be held at a place notified for this purpose. Admittedly, in the instant case, counting took place at a place other than the one notified. Same was supervised by the Returning Officer. The Election Commission considered the report in this regard and, thereafter came to the conclusion that counting had not been done in the manner prescribed. The Commission decided to cancel the election and order re-poll.
I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the order passed by the Election Commission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, ratio of judgment in the case of Malkit Kaur (supra) is not applicable. Dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) 29.10.2014 JUDGE sukhpreets SUKHPREET KAUR 2014.10.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh