Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Election Commissioner And Ors. on 13 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR349
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, Amar Dutt
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has framed a question of law, which according to the petitioner, is an important question of law and arises for consideration of the Court in this writ petition. The question of law formulated reads as under:-
" Whether the Stale Election Commission had any power to interfere in the election mattes after the elections are completed and results are declared?"
On 16th June, 2003, the government of Punjab notified the general elections of the Gram Panchayats in Punjab. The elections are to be conducted by the State Election Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in accordance with the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994. The electoral rolls of Gram Panchayat, Said Mubarak were revised and finalised by the Electoral Registration Officer. No appeal was preferred by any person under Rule 6(5) read with Section 33 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of Electoral Registration Officer. The said Gram Panchayat has one Sarpanch and five Panches, who were to be elected. The post of Sarpanch was kept for general category and in the category of Panches, one post was reserved for Backward Class and two seats were reserved for general category. The elections were ordered to be held on 29th June, 2003. The petitioner filed his nomination papers for the post of Sarpanch along with Jaswant Singh-respondent No. 4. After withdrawal date, only said two persons remained in the field and elections were held on the pronounced date i.e. 29th June, 2003. The result of the election was declared by the Returning Officer. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Said Mubarak and five panches were also elected. On 17.7.2003 they took oath of their respective offices and started functioning in those elected posts. Respondent No. 4 Jaswant Singh being dissatisfied from election result on 23rd July, 2003 filed the election petition before the Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur, on which notice was issued to the petitioner and other respondents therein for 7th August, 2003. The respondent No. 4, who is stated to be very close to the Minister for Election Shri Partap Singh Bajwa, influenced respondent No. 1, who, according to the petitioner, ceases to have any power and jurisdiction in the election matter, after the election was over so as to harass the petitioner. Therefore, he summoned the petitioner on the pretext of making a probe in regard to electoral roll. The petitioner, thus, contends that except Election Tribunal none has jurisdiction to interfere in the matter particularly when the election petition in relation to the election of the Sarpanch and Panches of Said Mubarakpur is pending. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to overreach and frustrate the decision of the Election Tribunal, in accordance with law.
2. Upon notice, the respondents filed reply, wherein facts have hardly been disputed. However, it is stated that a deputation of the residents of village Said Mubarakpur met the Commission on 23rd July, 2003 and complained that 120 votes were illegally and arbitrarily deleted from the basic electoral roll of the Gram Panchayat for the year 1988. This fact came to the notice of the candidates even on 29.6.2003. the date on which poll was held. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Electoral Registration Officer, Batala had committed a lot of illegalities and no changes could have been made as per Section 31 of the Act, after filing of the nomination was over which was 29th June, 2003, as such, the competent authority was looking into the matter only to conduct inquiry for departmental purposes as well as for taking other action in the matter. They disputed the fact that attempt is to frustrate the election petition. The said Election Commission has issued notice to the S.D.M. and Ors. for making out correction as the Commission felt strongly that deletion appears to have been made arbitrarily and without following due procedure laid down under law and without notice to the affected persons.
3. No doubt, under Section 31 of the Act, Electoral Registration Officer has jurisdiction for the purpose of carrying out the corrections in the entries of electoral roll, but he has to follow the procedure prescribed under that Act including granting a reasonable opportunity to the affected persons of being heard. The procedure has been duly spelt out in Sections 31 to 33 of the Act. The inquiry contemplated under the said provisions can be conducted for all intents and purposes as is postulated under the said provisions. There can also be no doubt that inquiry can be conducted even for departmental proceedings even in relation to the matter where process of election has already been concluded, but it can hardly be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the statue as well as proprietary where election petition has been filed taking various grounds including challenge to the electoral roll. The S.D.M., or the Electoral Registration Officer should not run a parallel proceedings under Sections 31 to 33 of the Act. such parallel proceedings are likely to affect the progress of the election petition and may even tantamount to exercise of a jurisdiction, which may overlap with the special jurisdiction exercisable by the Election Tribunal. The possibility of conflicting view on the same subject matter can also be not ruled out.
4. It is not disputed before us that in the election petition filed by respondent No. 4 before the Election Tribunal, all the grounds including the wrongful deletion of 120 votes from the voters list have been taken. The matters are bound to be gone into a greater depth by the Election Tribunal, as the parties would be permitted to lead evidence in accordance with election laws. A summary procedure contemplated under Sections 31 to 34 of the Act is intended to achieve different object i.e. maintenance of the correct electoral roll rather than using the same as ground for election petition by an unsuccessful candidate. The State Election Commissioner, Punjab had written a letter dated 23.07.2003, Annexure P/3 to the writ petitioner, to the District Electoral Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, suo motu initiating an action on the basis that a deputation had met him and complained wrongful deletion of 120 votes from the list on 29.06.2003 and requiring him to produce the records before the said Commissioner on 24.07.2003. Vide Annexure P/4, the letter dated 28.07.2003 the same authority further directed the same officer as well as three other Officers including the petitioner to appear on 29.07.2003 at 12.30 P.M. This letter was issued in continuation to the previous order and for ascertainment of further facts. We fail to understand why the Election Commissioner should act in that manner and in such haste. The jurisdiction of the State Election Commission comes to an end, upon conclusion of the process of election. Maintenance of electoral rolls under Section 15 of the Act is vested in the Electoral Registration Officer. Under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act the electoral rolls are to be prepared in the prescribed manner and published accordingly. Correction of the entries in the electoral rolls could be made by the Electoral Registration Officer. However, the orders passed by the Electoral Registration Officer are appealable under Section 33 of the Act to the Election Commission in the manner and within the time prescribed thereunder.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon The Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, to contend that under the Rules no power is vested in the Election Commission to take any steps in regard to correction of the electoral rolls. This submission does not appear to be quite well founded inasmuch as under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 6, the Election Commission may order for general revision of electoral rolls of the Gram Sabha Area after every five years and by laying down instructions. Under Section 23 of the Act, the District Electoral Officer including the Electoral Registration Officer would be deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the period commencing on and from the date of the notification calling for such election till ending with the date of declaration of the results. On these premises it may not be possible to accept the contention that under no circumstances the Election Commission can exercise any powers for correction of the electoral rolls. At the cost of repetition and to provide a clear caution to such authorities we must notice that if any order has been passed by the Electoral Registration Officer the same is appealable under the statute by the aggrieved party. This necessarily implies that where an election petition is pending, the Election Commission would have no jurisdiction to embark upon the adjudication of any principal or ancillary dispute arising in the Election Commission pending before the Election Tribunal. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Barua and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors., A.I.R, 1986 Supreme Court 103, to contend that the election of the candidate cannot be challenged on the ground of duplicate electoral rolls after declaration of results. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the merits of the case in view of the pendency of the election petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case Jagjit Singh v. State Election Commission, Punjab and Ors., (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 396 to contend that once the election is over, the State commission ceases to have any jurisdiction and/or passing order for re-poll under the provisions of Section 59 of the Act.
7. In view of our above discussion, we dispose of this petition with direction that respondents could continue with inquiry in so far it intended to correct, if at all, the electoral roll prospectively and/or are conducting inquiry for the departmental purpose. However, respondents should ensure that they do not transgress their jurisdiction so as to determine or adjudciate upon any of the matters directly in issue in the election petition. We further issue direction to the Election Tribunal to dispose of the Election Petition filed by respondent No. 4 expediliously and in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.