Naib Singh vs Presiding Officer And Ors on 28 March, 2016
8. He further contended that from the affidavit filed by Ram
Singh, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Andana at
Moonak, on the basis of direction issued by this Court, it also comes out
that no proceedings as mandated by Rule 33 of the Punjab Panchayat
Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') has been conducted
at the start of counting or thereafter. The signatures of respondent No.2
were also not obtained on the proceedings which negates his presence.
Thus, he contended that the impugned order passed by the learned
Election Tribunal for ordering the recount of the votes, which is
otherwise essential to do the complete justice between the parties, does
not suffer from any illegality. To support his contentions, he relied upon
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 31-03-2016 00:04:53 :::
Civil Revision No.1080 of 2014 -5-
cases Gursewak Singh Vs. Avtar Singh and others 2006(2) RCR (Civil)
463, Darshan Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-President Officer,
Election Tribunal and others 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 271, Gurtej Singh
Vs. Darbara Singh 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 525, Sadhu Singh Vs. Darshan
Singh and another 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 55, Liyakat Vs. Kanhiya Lal
and others 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 731, Gurnam Bindra Singh Vs.
Kulwant Singh and others 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 367, Ajaib Singh Vs.
Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal Mansa and others 2015(4) PLR
628, Deepak Sharma Vs. Hardeep Kaur and others 2014(4) LAR 85,
Mander Singh Vs. Mangal Singh 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 494 and Manjeet
Kaur Vs. The Presiding Officer and others CR No.535 of 2015 decided
on 21.12.2015.