DEEPAK SHARMA Vs. HARDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to the Gram Panchayat Raidharana were held in July 2013. The post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat village Raidharana is reserved for women candidates. The petitioner -Deepak Sharma and the 1st respondent -Hardeep Kaur contested for the post in the elections held for the post of Sarpanch. The total votes polled were 3061. Forty four votes were cancelled. Deepak Sharma won with a margin of 65 votes. The petitioner polled 1541 votes whilst Hardeep Kaur polled 1476.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the result of the election, loosing candidate Hardeep Kaur filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal, Sunam, District Sangrur. It is complained that the returning officer did not provide a copy of the result of the election on the spot even though asked for repeatedly and Mittal Manju 2014.05.12 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.454 of 2014 which was available after three days from the day of polling by the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moonak. It was alleged that wrong procedure was adopted in the election; the polling and counting officers were appointed in connivance with the successful candidate and the SDM concerned; fake persons had cast votes in favour of the winning candidate or in the names of dead persons; votes of people living abroad were cast to the detriment of the loosing candidate. Election rules and legal provisions were violated and therefore the election result was liable to be quashed on account of corrupt practices resorted to in the hustings and the counting of votes. It was urged that where there are more than one booth there can only be one returning officer, and the rest could only presiding officers for each booth. The returning officer appointed was a Science teacher in a local Government school. It is averred that every presiding officer in case of more than one booth would seal the ballot boxes after casting of votes polled in each booth and to carry the boxes in bags from the respective polling booths to one place for counting all the votes together in the presence of the returning officer. It was complained that in the present case, counting was done at three different polling booths which is against the procedure laid down. Hardeep Kaur says that she protested but her protests went unheeded that counting did not take place in one spot. At the time of counting, the election petitioner was present at booth No.34, her polling agents Shingara Singh at booth No.35 and Hakam Singh at No.36 which are the three disputed booths. Her polling agents were present but according to her "far away from the counting tables" (para.8). Where her polling agents sat they could not see the counting at close hand. She complains that her counting Mittal Manju 2014.05.12 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.454 of 2014 agents were not allowed to stand near the counting table and the votes which have been cancelled have not been shown to the petitioner and no reasons were given why those votes were cancelled. Therefore, the election was not held as per law. If proper counting was done, Hardeep Kaur would have won. Charge of connivance with election staff is alleged in the election petition and re -counting of votes was demanded as an alternative prayer.

(3.) THE Election Tribunal has gone by the deposition of the polling agents of Hardeep Kaur in booth Nos.34, 35 and 36 to order re -counting on January 27, 2014.