SAKOORAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which has arisen for determination is whether the declaration of Nasim Akhtari, respondent No. 5, as the elected Sarpanch on the basis of election on June 29, 2003 was valid or not.

(2.) THE factual position may be narrated at the outset. Sakooran, petitioner herein and Nasim Akhtari, respondent No. 5 were two of the three candidates for Sarpanchship of Bhaini Kamboan. Election was held on June 29, 2003. After the votes had been polled the Presiding Officer started counting process but before the result could be announced, 20 persons stormed the counting room and snatched the ballot papers from the counting staff. The Presiding Officer informed the Returning Officer (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla) who visited the spot and complained to the police whereupon FIR 166 was registered at Police Station Malerkotla at 11.30 P.M. on June 29, 2003 under Sections 353/186/380 IPC, 135/135-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Nasim Akhtari's election was liable to be quashed because once the Commission was convinced that re-election was necessary, re-election had to be conducted. The action of the Returning Officer to postpone the election and then declaring the result was without jurisdiction. Once re-election had been ordered, the decision could not be reviewed. It was also submitted that it was necessary to instill confidence in democracy. Election should be quashed because ballot papers had been taken away and result could not be announced on the basis of ballot papers whose tampering could not be ruled out. In short, the argument was that once the Commission was satisfied that re-polling was necessary, the earlier election process could not be made the basis for declaration of the result.