Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Jasbir Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 December, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 223, (1995) 109 PUN LR 603, (1995) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 245, (1995) 1 LANDLR 423, 1995 PUNJ LJ 54
ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, a candidate for election as Member of the Panchayat Samiti Naushehra Pannuan, District Amritsar, complaints that no election can be said to have taken place as the symbol of 'Bell' allotted to her was not printed on the ballot paper. She consequently, impugns the election of respondent No. 4.
2. In response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, two separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. For the official respondents, the written statement has been filed by Mr. G.S. Brar, who was the Returning Officer. Besides a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an election petition, it has been averred that the petitioner had polled 615 votes and as such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to her by the alleged indecipherable printing of the symbol. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been campaigning for her election and had issued a poster, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R-1. On this poster she had indicated that her symbol was a 'bird' which in the local dilect is described as 'Chira'. It has been 'further pointed out that "the symbol was clear. No complaint was made by the petitioner or any of the voters at the time of election. The result was declared on the basis of votes received by the candidates". To a similar effect is the written statement filed on behalf of the Returned candidate viz. Respondent No.4.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arises is --Can an election be said to be valid in spite of the fact that the symbol allotted to a candidate is not printed on the ballot paper?
4. This question was considered by us in Pargat Singh v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 14885 of 1994, which was decided on Nov. 24, 1994 (reported in AIR 1995 Punj & Har 221). We had taken the view that the provisions of the rules requiring allocation and display of the symbols were mandatory and that no fair election could be said to have taken place in a case where the symbol printed on a ballot paper was not at all decipherable.
5. What is the position in the present case?
6. In pursuance to our orders, the Returning Officer had produced before us the ballot papers. We had also recorded the statement of Mr. G.S. Brar, the Returning Officer. Five of the ballot papers were taken on record as Exhibits C-1 to C-5. One of these viz. Ex, C-1 is annexed herewith. A perusal of this ballot paper shows that the symbol of 'Bell' was not at all printed against the name of petitioner. Mr. G.S. Brar during the course of his statement clearly admitted that the symbol against the petitioner's name "is not decipherable". He also admitted that he had not sent for any of the candidates to show them the ballot papers. He further admitted that the photo copy of the poster Annexure R-1 had been provided to him by a representative of the Returned Candidate viz. respondent No.4. It is, thus, clearly established on the record that the symbol allotted to the petitioner was not at all printed on the ballot paper. The rules relating to the allotment of symbols and the publication thereof were, thus, not followed. In this situation, we are of the view that no valid election can be said to have taken place.
7. It is true that the Statute provides for the remedy of an election petition. This remedy is available to a person who questions the election of a particular candidate. However, in our view no election can be said to have taken place when the symbol allotted to a candidate is not printed on the ballot paper. We are not examining the matter in detail in view of the fact that the relevant provisions have already been examined by us in Pargat Singh's case (AIR 1995 Punj & Har 221).
8. In view of the above, we hold that no valid election had taken place. As a result, the election of respondent No. 4 as Member of the Panchayat Samiti is vitiated. Learned counsel for the parties further pointed out that pursuant to her election as a member, respondent No. 4 had contested the election for the office of Vice Chairman of the Samiti. Since her election as a Member was not valid, the subsequent election as Vice Chairman cannot also be sustained. Accordingly, we quash her election to the offices of Member and Vice Chairman of the Samiti. In the Circumstances of the case, while allowing the writ petition, we make no order as to costs.
9. Petition allowed.