HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN Vs. RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS election 'petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Harmohinder Singh Pradhan challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, from Raikot Assembly Constituency, to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, for which the polling was held on 13.2.2002 and the result was declared on 24.2.2002 and also for holding respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, having committed corrupt practice, with a further prayer that the petitioner namely Harmohinder Singh Pradhan, be declared to have been duly elected from the aforesaid Raikot Assembly Constituency. The petitioner has also sought direction for holding fresh election to the Raikot Assembly Constituency, as the same had not been held in accordance with the voters list of 1999, which was revised in 2001 and then in 2002.

(2.) IN the election petition it was alleged by the petitioner that he had contested the general election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Raikot Assembly Constituency, district Ludhiana. It was alleged that the Election Commission of India, had issued the election programme for election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, according to which the last date for filing nominations was 23.1.2002, scrutiny of nominations was to be held on 24.1.2002, withdrawal of nominations could take place upto 28.1.2002, the polling was to be held on 13.2.2002 and the counting of votes was to take place on 24.2.2002. It was alleged that in the previous assembly elections held in 1997, the petitioner had contested the election as a candidate of Indian National Congress and was declared elected, defeating respondent No. 1 in the said election. It was alleged that in the present election, the petitioner and others had filed nomination papers for the Raikot Assembly Constituency, and after scrutiny and withdrawal of the nomination papers, only the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 were left to contest the election to the Raikot Assembly Constituency. It was alleged that the polling was held on 13.2.2002, through electronic voting machines and the counting was held on 24.2.2002 and on the same day the results were declared, vide which respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 44388 votes whereas the petitioner was shown to have secured 37989 votes.

(3.) IT was further alleged in the election petition that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, father of respondent No. 1, alongwith respondent No. 1 in the meetings held on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, had announced that all the religious leaders of the area have appealed to the public to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and as such the people should vote in accordance with the wishes of the said leaders, under whose religion/symbols said people were followers. It was alleged that at Village Bhaini Bringa, Dalbir Singh had attended the meeting and had informed the petitioner about the same, whereas Darshan Singh had informed the petitioner about the meeting held at Raikot, whereas Avtar Singh had informed the petitioner about the meeting held at Village Burj Hari Singh. It was alleged that the above named persons had informed the petitioner about those meetings on 10.2.2002. It was alleged that those persons had informed the petitioner that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had specifically named various religious leaders, including Sant Mahesh Muni Ji Borewale, Sant Balbir Singh, Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh, Badni Kalan, Nanaksar Thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Ji Vaid, Sant Avtar Singh, Badni Kalan, Sant Bir Singh, Madoke, Member, SGPC, Sant Atma Singh, Dhurkot, Member SGPC and Sant Bharpoor Singh, Barmi Wale. It was alleged that said Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi had called upon the people to cast their votes in furtherance to the wishes of their respective leaders and to keep their symbols high by letting his son Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, to win from Raikot Assembly Constituency. It was alleged that Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, himself was the President of Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, the supreme body of the Sikhs and thus corrupt practice, as defined under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act, had been committed. It was further alleged that the aforesaid appeal was got published by respondent No. 1 in daily Ajit, a Punjabi newspaper, published from Jalandhar, in the issue dated 12.2.2002, copy Annexure P2 and its translated copy Annexure P-2/T. It was alleged that the said appeal was issued by various religious leaders, under their symbols, to the public and particularly to their followers for casting their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and this amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act.