Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kashmir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 October, 2008

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Ajay Tewari

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                   C.W.P. No. 18270 of 2008
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 31.10.2008

Kashmir Singh and others
                                                           .... PETITIONERS

                                   Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                         ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI


Present:    Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

                   ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are elected Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Dharamheri, District Patiala, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 28.9.2008, wherein respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

The case of the petitioners is that no proper notice was issued to them with regard to the said meeting. It is further case of the petitioners that since name of respondent No.6 Karnail Singh was not notified as Panch of the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, therefore, he was illegally permitted to cast vote for the election of Sarpanch in the said meeting.

After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are raising the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), has held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case is made out to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Sarpanch. Thus, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.

Dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of election petition under section 76 read with section 89 of the Act.

                                        ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                                JUDGE


October 31, 2008                             ( AJAY TEWARI )
ndj                                               JUDGE