AMARJIT KAUR Vs. CHANDI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2014 whereby it was held by the Election Tribunal that the rejection of the nomination papers of petitioners Sukhdeep Singh, Jaswinder Kaur, Sawran Kaur, Mohinder Singh and Gurbachan Singh (respondent No.5 to 9 herein) was illegal and the nomination papers filed by them were in order. The order passed by the officer concerned rejecting the papers was set aside. It was directed that further action for election to all the posts of Panch would be taken by the Election Department.

(2.) THE appellants, who were the elected candidates, challenged the order on the ground that the nomination papers filed by them were not in accordance with the procedure laid down and had been rightly rejected. The reason for rejection was that the each page of the nomination papers was not signed by the candidates as required. It was pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the election petition was not presented in person by respondents No.5 to 9 and, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed outright. Another ground taken was that the Election Tribunal did not adopt the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short) because neither issues were framed nor evidence was taken.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants argued that so far as the presentation of the petition in person was concerned, the relevant zimni order dated 19.8.2013 mentioned that the file was presented and counsel for the petitioners was present. Thereafter, the proceedings were recorded. This would mean that the petitioners Sukhdeep Singh etc. were not present at that time. Counsel for the contesting respondents, however, pointed out that the petition was not presented on 19.8.2013 but was rather presented on 29.7.2013, on which date it was written that the petition had been presented on that date and was to be put for consideration for 19.8.2013. He contended that it was nowhere written that the petition was presented by the counsel, which would mean that it was presented by the candidates themselves. Since the procedural law on the subject required the petition to be presented in person, it would be presumed to have been so presented because it was not observed by the official receiving the petition that it was not presented in person or that it was presented by the counsel.