NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the validity of one of the votes polled which is counted in support of 'No Confidence Motion' carried against him. This vote is stated to have been marked in a manner that it has spilled into both the columns meant to indicate voter choice being for or against the motion. Plea accordingly is that vote will not show the choice of the voter in clear manner and so was wrongly counted as validly polled vote. If this vote is held invalid and is rejected then the 'No Confidence Motion' for removing the petitioner would fail. The elections to the Gram Panchayat in the State of Haryana were held in the year 2010. The petitioner was elected as Vice Chairman of the Block Samiti, Jind, District Jind. It is averred that some of the members of the Block Samiti were against the petitioner from the very first day of his election as Vice Chairman and made every efforts one after another to remove the petitioner on the one pretext or another. The petitioner claims that his work and conduct was very good throughout and the public of the Samiti was satisfied and happy with his work.

(2.) The petitioner states that his trouble commenced when he made complaints against Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jind (respondent No. 2) leading to registration of an FIR No. 580 dated 29.08.2011 under Sections 379, 380, 381, 411, 166, 167, 120-B and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jind, District Jind. The subordinate staff working with respondent No. 2 and some private persons were also likely to get involved in this FIR. Thus, respondent No. 2 acted against the petitioner by issuing a notice dated 08.02.2012 for considering 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner. The notice was issued to all the thirty members of the Block Samiti, Jind fixing 17.02.2012 as date for considering the motion.

(3.) Out of total 30 members, 22 came present in the meeting for considering the 'No Confidence Motion' on 17.02.2012. The record would show that 'No Confidence Motion' was carried against the petitioner as is made out from Annexure P-2. The petitioner was suspicious about the result from the very beginning as he found the members to be under pressure of respondent No. 2. Without any justification, no proceedings were recorded in this regard and so also no mention was made about numbers of votes polled for or against the motion.