HARKIRAT SINGH Vs. AMARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present election petition has been filed by petitioner Harkirat Singh under Section 81 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") to challenge the election of respondent Amarinder Singh to the Punjab Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) i.e. 76 Patiala Town Assembly Constituency held on 13.02.2002 and result thereof was declared on 24.02.2002, mainly on the ground of "corrupt practices" adopted by respondent in obtaining/procuring assistance of senior gazetted officers of the State for influencing the voters to cast their votes in his favour; incurring more expenses than the prescribed limit and some of the expenses have not been reflected in the accounts of election expenditure submitted by him. Respondent has also projected himself as "Maharaja of Patiala" in the posters issued/published by him just to influence the voters, which also amounts to "corrupt practices" as per provisions of Section 123(2) of the Act.

(2.) Notice of the election petition was issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through his counsel and filed written statement wherein several preliminary objection were raised including the maintainability of the election petition. Petitioner also filed replication to the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court framed the following issues vide order dated 23.09.2002 :-

(3.) However, issues No. 5 to 8 were treated as preliminary issues by this Court. After hearing the arguments on said preliminary issues, the election petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.11.2004 on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose the material facts regarding corrupt practices to constitute a complete cause of action. Said judgment dated 03.11.2004, dismissing the election petition by this Court, was challenged by the election petitioner before Hon'ble the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2005 and judgment dated 03.11.2004 passed by this Court was set aside. The case was remitted to this Court for deciding the same on merits as the petition was dismissed only on preliminary ground being not maintainable, whereas it was required to be decided on merits.