MASSA SINGH Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 12.10.2009 by which election petition filed by the appellants, challenging the election of respondent No. 1 - Paramjit Kaur to the post of Sarpanch of Village Lakhanpal, Block Gurdaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur, has been dismissed.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lakhanpal, Block Gurdaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur,was held on 26.5.2008. In terms of Section 13-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act No. 9 of 1994') first meeting was held for election of Sarpanch on 18.7.2008. All the elected Panches were notified the date, time and place of the meeting. The said meeting could not be carried out as only the appellants came present in the meeting, therefore due to lack of quorum, it was adjourned to 19.7.2008. Again all the Panches were notified the date, time and place of the second meeting. In the said meeting, the appellants were allegedly absent, therefore, in terms of Rule 45-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') meeting was carried out in which Paramjit Kaur-respondent No. 1 was declared elected as Sarpanch. The said election was challenged by the appellants by way of CWP No. 13224 of 2008 in which following order was passed :

(3.) Appellants then filed the present election petition under the provisions of Act No. 9 of 1994 and Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short 'Act No. 19 of 1994') in which it was, inter alia, alleged that the returning officer/respondent No. 3 under the influence of the local MLA has changed the venue of second meeting and when the appellants reached at the changed venue, they were not allowed to enter by the police, therefore, they could not participate in the election, though, they were in majority. It is also alleged that on the asking of Local MLA, who is stated to be the Chairman of the Milkfed, the returning officer/respondent No. 3 was changed at the last moment with one of his confident, who is stated to be the General Manager of the Milk Plant, Gurdaspur. Respondent No. 1 denied all the allegations made in the election petition whereas respondent No. 3/Returning Officer has categorically admitted the change of the Returning Officer and alleged that the change was effected because of the non-availability of the earlier Returning Officer, who was to attend some other official work. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal :-