LACHHMAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTION for the offices of the Sarpanch and 8 Panches of Gram Panchayat Badnawar in Barwala Block of District Hissar was held on December 28,1991. There were four polling booths in one building. In one of them the Returning Officer was also the Presiding Officer. That was booth No. 1. It appears that there were some discrepancies in the number of votes found in the ballot boxes and the number of votes actually shown as having been polled. In fact, 883 votes were found while the record showed only 841 votes were polled. Annexure P. 1 indicates that the result of the election was declared and petitioner No. 1 was declared elected as Sarpanch while the three others were declared as Panches. Annexure P. 1 also indicates that there was some disturbance during the election for which reason the polling had to be suspended for about one hour. One of the defeated candidates, namely, Jagdish, appears to have made an application to the Deputy Commissioner complaining of malpractices/irregularities allegedly committed during the polling on December 28, 1991. One of the allegations in the complaint is that,-"the ballot boxes are being tampered with. " The complaint further indicates that certain malpractices were committed during the election. The request was that the polling be postponed and repoll be ordered. On this complaint, the Deputy Commissioner called for the report from the B. D. and P. O He submitted his report on December 31, 1991, which is Annexure R. 2. The report says,

(2.) IT also transpires from the record that the petitioners before the repoll was held, rushed to the civil Court with a prayer that the repoll be withheld Since, however, the repoll actually was held on January 3, 1992 and the votes were recast, this suit was withdrawn on January 6, 1992. It is significant that none of the parties had placed on the record the copy of the plaint filed in that suit.

(3.) THE petitioners in this writ petition challenge the order, Annexure P. 3, alleging it to be entirely without jurisdiction. What is alleged is that unless there is a finding that a particular ballot box or ballot boxes is or are either unlawfully taken out of the custody of the Presiding Officer or is or are in any way tampered with, or is or are either accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost, the Deputy Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order in terms of sub-rule (I) of rule 30 of the Haryara Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1971, (hereinafter called the Rules ). In our opinion, so far as this statement of law is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners is right. It appears from the order, Annexure P. 3, as also from the arguments advanced at the bar that in order to give jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner to take action under Section 30 (1), one of the basis is that the ballot boxes were tampered with. Since much will turn upon the construction of rule 30 (1) of the Rules, the same may be quoted :