MANJIT KAUR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-ELECTION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, I shall be disposing of two appeals bearing FAO No. 1292 of 2010 'Manjit Kaur v. Deputy Commissioner-cum- Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others' and FAO No. 1382 of 2010 'Jasmel Kaur v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others' because in both the appeals the facts are almost similar and the questions of law are identical.

(2.) In brief, elections were held on 26.05.2008 in order to constitute 7 members Panchayat of Gram Panchayat Tarkhan Majra, Block Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, out of which 4 seats were meant for General category, one for General (women) category, one for S.C. category and one for S.C. (Women) category. There were 13 candidates in fray, out of which 5 had contested in the S.C. Category, 6 in General category, one in S.C. (Women) category and one in General (Woman) category. Manjit Kaur wife of Harjit Singh was elected to the post of Panch from General (Woman) category and Jasmel Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh from S.C.(Woman) category. Election of Manjit Kaur wife of Harjit Singh is challenged by Manjit Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh by way of an election petition, whereas election of Jasmel Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh is challenged by Jinder Kaur wife of Pal Singh. Both the election petitions were allowed vide order dated 21.01.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib [for short "Election Tribunal"]. Aggrieved against the said order dated 21.01.2010 of the Election Tribunal, Manjit Kaur wife of Harjit Singh filed FAO No. 1292 of 2010 in which notice of motion was issued by this Court on 15.03.2010 and Jasmel Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh filed FAO No. 1382 of 2010 in which notice of motion was issued on 18.03.2010. In both the cases, operation of the impugned order of the learned Election Tribunal was stayed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Election Tribunal deserves to be set aside due to the violation of many mandatory provisions of law. He summarized his submissions under the following heads :-