AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Rupnagar exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 14 -A of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election (Amendment) Rules, 1992 (for short, the Amended Rules) dated January 18, 1993 adjourning the election of Gram Panchayat, Kotli, Had Basat No. 161, till further orders, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WHEN the petition came up for motion hearing on January 21,1993, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Presiding Officer had declared elected Petitioner No. 1 as Sarpanch and other petitioners as Panches and after the declaration of the result of the election, the Returning Officer -cum -Sub Divisional Officer (C), Ropar exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner could not adjourn the election purporting to exercise his powers Under Rule 14 -A(1) (vi) of the Amended Rules. We issued notice to the Returning Officer -cum Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rupnagar and also directed him to produce the record. He has put in appearance today and also produced the relevant record. A perusal of the record reveals that Ajmer Singh, petitioner No.l, Inderjit Singh and Karnail Singh had filed their nomination papers for the office of Sarpanch. The nomination papers of Inderjit Singh and Karnail Singh were rejected by the Presiding Officer. The nomination paper of Inderjit Singh was rejected on the ground that the serial number in voters' list of the proposer and the seconder was not mentioned. It is also written with different ink that Inderjit Singh did not mention his age in the nomination paper. The nomination paper of Karnail Singh was rejected on the ground that the serial number on the voters' list of the proposer and the seconder was not mentioned. The Presiding Officer did not indicate as to who had raised these objections. The election rules do not provide for rejection of the nomination papers for the reasons pointed out by the Presiding Officer. The nomination papers of Sarvshri Bachan Singh, Santokh Singh, Smt. Surinder Kaur, Shadi Singh and Meet Singh were rejected on identical grounds as those of Inderjit Singh and Karnail Singh, who were candidates for the office of Sarpanch. It appears that the Presiding Officer wanted to eliminate one group from the contest. The Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Rupnagar exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner appears to have correctly exercised his powers under Rule 14 -A of the Amended Rules. The Rule reads thus: -