MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election for the post of Sarpanch and Panches of village Rojhla, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, was held on 06.06.2010. The petitioner and respondent No. 6 contested election for the post of Panch from ward No. 7, booth No. 136. According to the petitioner, 106 votes were polled in booth No. 136, out of which 104 votes were found to be valid and 2 votes were cancelled. It is alleged that the petitioner secured 58 votes and respondent No. 6 was polled 46 votes. The petitioner was declared elected and certificate was issued by the Presiding officer at the spot. However, the petitioner came to know on 25.07.2010 that respondent No. 6 has taken the oath of the office of the Panch. The petitioner immediately made a representation on 02.08.2010 to the Deputy Commissioner and requested to take necessary action. When no action was taken, the also submitted a reminder on 16.08.2010. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the change of result of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary as the petitioner was declared elected by the Presiding Officer and his result could not have been changed. Thus, this petition has been filed to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for administering oath to respondent No. 6 of the office of Panch as illegal and arbitrary and has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus as well to declare the petitioner as winning candidate and to administer him oath of the office of Panch of the Gram Panchayat Rajhola.

(2.) AFTER notice, reply has been filed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum -Returning Officer, Panchayat, Safidon, in which, besides taking the plea of remedy available under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 by filing the election petition, it is alleged that in the election, 110 votes were polled, out of which 104 votes were found to be valid and 6 votes were invalid. Respondent No. 6 polled 58 votes, whereas the petitioner polled 46 votes. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Safidon sent the name of respondent No. 6 as the winning candidate from ward No. 7 and the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, sent the name of respondent No. 6 to the State Election Commissioner, Haryana, for the notification of her name in the official gazette. The oath for the office of Panch from ward No. 7 was also taken by respondent No. 6 on 25.07.2010. It is also alleged that the Returning Officer, Panchayat had issued a certificate in favour of respondent No. 6.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has also filed a separate reply in which it is alleged that the notification dated 15.05.2010 was issued for the purpose of holding elections of Panches, Sarpanches, Member Panchayat, Samiti and Zila Parishad of Block Safidon, District Jind. The election was held on 06.06.2010 and counting of votes was done immediately after the close of poll. The Deputy Commissioner of each District is the District Electoral Officer, Panchayat. Under Rule 70 of the Election Rules, the Returning Officer, Panchayat is the competent authority who would declare a candidate to be elected for the office of Panch who would secure larges number of valid votes and certify the return of election in Form No. 18. Respondent No. 4, being the Returning Officer, for the purpose of declaring result of the Panch relating to the election of ward No. 7, was the competent authority to declare the result and submit Form No. 18 to the District Election Officer, Panchayat along with the result sheet which is to be sent to the State Election Commissioner for the purpose of notification. It is alleged that the Deputy Commissioner submitted a list along with letter dated 04.07.2010 in which respondent No. 6 was shown to have been elected to the post of Panch figures at Sr. No. 7 reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). Thereafter, the State Election Commission notified the name of respondent No. 6 in the notification dated 06.07.2010.