GEETA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 10.10.2019, whereby the Election Petition preferred by the writ petitioner had been dismissed being not maintainable on the ground of limitation, she has chosen to file the present writ petition.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual matrix as set-forth by the petitioner in the petition in hand, is that she, alongwith respondent no. 7 Rajni Devi, contested the election for the post of Panch from Ward No.2, Village Bukhari, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar which was held on 10.01.2016. Total 106 votes were polled from the said ward, out of which she secured 60 votes whereas respondent no.7 got 46 votes and accordingly, she was declared elected. She took oath as a Panch and attended the Panchayat meetings during the period from 28.02.2016 to 15.07.2016. However, on 24.10.2016, she came to know through the Gram Sachiv that her name did not figure in the list of Panches whose bank account numbers were to be submitted for disbursing their salary.

(3.) Petitioner moved an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) on 25.10.2016 and thereafter, to respondent no.3 on 28.10.2016 seeking correction in the result of the said election but in vain. Thereafter, she filed CWP No. 4890 of 2017 which was disposed of by this Court on 10.03.2017 while directing respondents no.3 and 6 to consider both her above-mentioned representations and to pass speaking order thereon, in accordance with law. Thereafter, an inquiry was got conducted through respondent no.6 and in view of the report thereof, respondent no.3 passed an order on 05.05.2017 to the effect that as per the record, election of Rajni Devi was correct and in case, the petitioner wanted re-counting of votes, she had to approach the Court of law. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred CWP No.14426 of 2017 for seeking re-counting of votes as polled in the afore-mentioned election, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2017 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an Election Petition, if so maintainable, at that stage. In pursuance of the said order, she preferred Election Petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994') for seeking direction to respondents no.1 to 4 for re-counting of the votes. However, respondent no.5 moved an application therein under Order 7 Rule11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation and the same has been decided vide the impugned order which is not legally sustainable because the Election Petition should have been decided on merits.