S. ALWINDERPAL SINGH PAKHOKE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHIEF Commissioner, Gurdwara Elections, while exercising the powers vested in him under Section 47 of The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Rule 13(1) of the Sikh Gurdwara Board Election Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, vide notification dated 1.6.2004 notified the election programme declaring the dates on, by or within which various stages of the election in each constituency of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (Board), as notified by the Government of India, are to be carried out. In terms of this notification the candidates were required to present nomination papers between 1st to 8th of June, 2004, which were to be scrutinised on 11.6.2004. The revisions could be preferred between 14th to 15th of June, 2004 against the orders of scrutiny. By 21.6.2004 the candidates could withdraw their candidature. On 23.62004 the polling stations were posted. On 11.7.2004 election was to be held, the results thereof were to be declared on 15.7.2004. Sardar Alwinder Singh Pakhoke, the petitioner filed his nomination papers to this election on 7.6.2004. In terms of the notification the nomination papers were scrutinised on 11.6.2004 and according to the petitionr his nomination papers stood accepted. Shri Joginder Singh respondent No. 6 filed a revision under Section 19(4) of the Rules before the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, making grievance against the acceptance of the nomination papers of the petitioner by the Scrutinising Officer. This revision was preferred by the said respondent on 17.6.2004. The parties were heard and on 18.6.2004 the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, while exercising the powers vested in him, declared the petitioner ineligible to contest the election of the Board. Aggrieved from this order of the Election Tribunal-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, the petitioner filed a petition, being petition No. 3 of 2004 before the Chief Commissioner, Gurdwara Elections, Government of India, at Chandigarh. After hearing the parties, the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 18.6.2004 was set aside and the order of the Returning Officer dated 11.6.2004 was restored by the Chief Commissioner vide his order dated 22.6.2004. The order also contained a direction with name of the petitioner in the final list of valid allotment papers and for allotment of symbol as per the claim. However, these directions were not carried out and they were declined by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 23.6.2004, wherein he had directed the Returning Officer to implement his order dated 18.6.2004 as the order of the Chief Election Commissioner was not in consonance with law and further directed that a symbol be not issued to the petitioner.

(2.) KEEPING in view the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.6.2004 as well as certain other events as noticed by the Chief Commissioner, Gurdwara Elections, in the order dated 26.6.2004, he countermanded the election in the constituencies No. 93-Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, 108-Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur and 109-Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur. It will be materially relevant to reproduce, for the purposes of convenience and otherwise, the relevant part of the order dated 26.6.2004, as under :-

(3.) ON these premises the petitioner prays that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 18.6.2004 be quashed, the name of the petitioner be ordered to be included in the list of the valid nomination papers, a symbol be allotted to him in relation to election of S.G.P.C. from constituency No. 93 and the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, Gurdawara Elections dated 22.6.2004 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, causing hurdle in implementation thereof be also quashed. Lastly, the petitioner prays that the order of the Chief Commissioner, Gurdwara Elections, dated 26.6.2004, Annexure P-8 to the writ petition, countermanding the election in that constituency be quashed and he be directed to hold election in that constituency. The challenge to the impugned orders passed by different authorities, by the petitioner is purely on legal grounds as well as on mis- interpretation of the rules in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.