RAGHBINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Returning Officer appointed for the election of Sarpanch of village Salani, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab could change the entries record in Form IX (Annexure P-2) showing the petitioner to have secured the higher valid votes and declare respondent no. 7 elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, is the question which has arisen for determination in this petition. The version of petition is that State of Punjab issued notification for conducting election of the Sarpanch and the Punches of villages in Punjab and accordingly, petitioner and one Inderjit Singh (respondent no. 7) filed their nominations for the post of Sarpanch. The said election was held on 30.12.2018 and respondent no. 5 Rajiv Garg was deputed as Presiding and Returning Officer. After casting of votes and their counting, petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch with 873 votes as compared to respondent no. 7 who secured 620 votes. Both petitioner and respondent no. 7 signed Form IX, which was thereafter given to petitioner duly signed by Presiding Officer Sh. Rajiv Garg but to utter surprise of the petitioner, respondent no. 7 in connivance with respondent no. 5 changed the result and they made cutting on Form IX.

(2.) Both the parties have been heard at length and this court has considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties on law points as well.

(3.) The question which is to be answered in this writ petition has already been considered by Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4926 of 2000 titled as Malkit Kaur vs. Jatinder Kaur and others , decided on 20.11.2001 and has further been followed by Division Bench of this court in Kashmir Kaur vs. State of Punjab , 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 580 and the notion so far is negative. Not only the precedent but infact, mere perusal of bare provisions makes it apparent that once a candidate is declared elected in Form IX, the Returning Officer ceases to have any power to alter the said declaration subsequently and the only alternative available to aggrieved person is to file an election petition. Rule 33 of Punjab Panchayat Elections Rules, 1994 is very clear in this regard. Coming to facts of the case, it is an admitted position that respondent no. 5 made alteration in Form IX, after getting it signed from both the candidates and in absence of petitioner. In fact, documents Annexures P-1 & P-2 i.e. copies of Form IX have been placed on record by the petitioner, in order to show that votes count was changed by Returning Officer after getting the Form IX signed from both the candidates and also after affixing his own signatures on the bottom right corner of the said form. Not only this, rather the copy of Form IX, Annexure P-2 was handed over to petitioner by respondent no. 5 at the spot, after which petitioner left the spot.