RAVINDER KUMARA RAWAL Vs. V.K. SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By two consecutive orders dated 04.05.2009 passed by the Election Tribunal, Panchkula and 08.06.2009 passed by the District Judge, Panchkula setting aside the election to the post of the President of the Panchkula, Municipal Council, the elected candidate Sh. Ravinder Kumar Rawal and the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Panchkula have felt themselves aggrieved and they have assailed the decisions through the writ petitions filed in C.W.P. No. 9227 of 2009 and 9452 of 2009 respectively.

(2.) The writ petition of the official respondents in the election petition has come about on account of the observations of the Election Tribunal and the Appellate Court that the election had not been held as per the procedure prescribed under law. To such procedure, we have to turn to the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and the relevant Municipal Election Rules of 1978 (hereinafter called as the 'Rules'). The election to the post of members of the Municipality is by a process of direct election from the territorial constituencies in the municipal area as laid down under Section 9 of the Act, while the election to the post as President and Vice President shall be from an electoral college of such elected members. The election of the members had been held on 30.03.2008 and the results were notified on 31.03.2008.

(3.) The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) had been appointed as a convener for conducting the election of the President and the Vice President on 15.04,2008. He had called the first meeting to take place on 25.04.2008 when out of 31 members, 17 had been present and the meeting was adjourned to 14.05.2008 when on votes cast on ballot papers sent by the State Election Commissioner, the petitioner had held the largest number of votes to be declared a winner. The challenge to the election is brought at the instance of one of the members, Sh. V.K. Sood, on the grounds that there was no secrecy in the electoral process in that a register maintained by the Election Officer noted down the serial numbers, wards and the signatures of the members to whom the ballot papers had been given and hence the entire election was vitiated. According to the petitioner, the ballot paper itself was not in the form prescribed by the relevant rules and the directives issued by the Government with reference to the conduct of the President's election had not been strictly followed. The other ground was that the candidates had been advised to tick mark the person that they were to choose as President, while the prescribed rules allowed even for marking of a negative vote by giving the option to mark 'Yes' or 'No' against the names of the contesting candidates. The form of ballot papers given and the particulars entered in the separate register had been found by the Election Tribunal to vitiate the decision, even while it held that the mode of marking for expressing preference did not cause any prejudice. The Appellate Court signalled aye to the Election Tribunal's verdict. The writ petitions have, therefore, been filed by the candidate declared as elected and the official respondents whose mode of conduct of election had been faulted.