PALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the passing of a writ of Certiorari, thus to quash the result dtd. 15/10/2024 (Annexure P-4) whereby respondent No.7 was declared the elected candidate for the post of Sarpanch. The further relief claimed in the instant petition is for the passing of a writ of Mandamus, thus directing respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioner as the Sarpanch of Village Pandori Takhtmal. Furthermore, a prayer has also been made in the instant petition for staying the declaration of the result made on 15/10/2024 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) It is stated that on 19/9/2024, the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, issued a Notification vide which general election of the members of the Gram Panchayat were to be held by 20/10/2024. The State Election Commission of Punjab vide Notification dtd. 27/9/2024 declared the schedule/program for the Gram Panchayat Election. The petitioner being resident of Village Pandori Takhtmal, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, contested the election for the post of Sarpanch. He was declared winner by two votes as he got 247 votes out of 540 votes. It is further averred that Gurjinder Singh respondent NO.7 in connivance with MLA of the ruling party, came to the polling booth and forcibly changed the election result by capturing all votes, whereupon he became declared as elected candidate, by adopting the toss system, especially when the petitioner and respondent No.7 got equal votes i.e 247. In the inquiry report dtd. 17/10/2024 (Annexure P- 6), which was submitted by the SDM-cum-ERO Tarn Taran, to the Deputy Commissioner cum Election Officer, Tarn Taran, thereins the SDM-cum-ERO specifically stated that the RO concerned has not played a clear and impartial role. The petitioner is stated to have sent e-mails on 15/10/2024 and also submitted a representation dtd. 11/11/2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran, thus detailing thereins that the result was changed arbitrarily and that the respondent No.7 in the instant petition was illegally declared elected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that at the time of the initial pronouncement of results by the Returning Officer rather the petitioner was declared elected as he had bagged the highest votes i.e 247 votes. Therefore, the subsequent thereto declaration by the Returning Officer, that respondent No.7 had bagged votes equal to the above votes as became bagged by the present petitioner but was arbitrarily made, given the original result sheet making speakings that the present respondent No.7 in the earlier announced result, thus had obtained only 245 votes. However, through the adoption of toss system, in the event of a tie of votes taking place amongst the present petitioner and respondent No.7, in the writ petition, therebys the Returning Officer, given the present respondent succeeding toss of coin, rather proceeded to declare respondent No.7 to be the winner in the elections. Therefore, it is also contended that the declaration by the Returning Officer vis-a-vis respondent No.7 being the winner, thus through the adoption of the supra untenable toss system but also suffers an infirmity as at the time of adoption of the toss system by the Returning Officer rather the present appellant was not then present.