LEKH RAM SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.2000 by which election to the office of Ranches and Sarpanch of village Madho Singhana, District Sirsa, was ordered to be held in abeyance. The petitioner has stated that he was a candidate for the post of Sarpanch and though nine nominations were accepted, eight had withdrawn and the petitioner was the only person left and was entitled to be declared elected under Rule 37 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 24.3.2000 fixing new schedule for the election.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that respondent No.4 appears to have made a complaint that his nomination has been wrongly rejected on which ex -parte enquiry appears to have been held without associating him and impugned order had been passed as a result of the said enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry held was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order was arbitrary. In para 5 of the petition, it is stated that respondent No.4 was nephew of the Chief Minister and it is for this reason that the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 i.e. State Election Commission has stated that respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the Returning Officer and once it is brought to the notice of the Election Commission that Returning Officer was acting illegally, in the interest of fair election, he can issue necessary directions suspending/cancelling the original schedule and issue a fresh schedule to enable all eligible candidates to contest the election. Written statement has been filed denying the allegations of mala fide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Shyam Sakhi and Ors. v/s. The State Election Commission and Ors., C.W.P. 32421 of 2000 decided on 7.8.2000 wherein the order of the Commission was set aside, after petitioner in that writ petition had already been declared elected. It was held that after declaration of result of the election, the Commission had no role to play. Other observations made in the said judgment are also in that context. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said judgment does not apply to the present case where result of the petitioner has not been declared.