LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-48

MANPREET SINGH GILL Vs. KULJIT SINGH

Decided On July 14, 2015
Manpreet Singh Gill Appellant
V/S
KULJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against order dated 23.12.2014, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cumElection Tribunal, Moga vide which election of the present appellant as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Gholia Kalan was set aside and the opposing candidate Kuljit Singh (respondent herein) was declared as elected Sarpanch.

(2.) Facts of the case are that Kuljit Singh, defeated candidate, filed the election petition before the Election Tribunal, Moga under Sections 74 and 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994'). It was stated in the election petition that in the year 2013 panchayat elections were held. The petitioner Kuljit Singh (respondent herein) as well as Manpreet Singh Gill respondent (appellant herein) contested the election. One Chamkaur Singh also contested the election. It was claimed that Manpreet Singh Gill and his family members are also enrolled as voters in SAS Nagar Mohali in addition to being registered as voters in Gholia Kalan, which is in violation of Section 26 of the Act of 1994. Therefore, election of respondent (appellant herein) should cancelled under Section 89(d)(iv) of the Act of 1994 and the petitioner (respondent herein) Kuljit Singh should be declared as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat under Section 90 of the Act of 1994.

(3.) Respondent (present appellant) on appearance took a preliminary objection that 3rd candidate to the post of Sarpanch is not made as party. Therefore, the election petition is not maintainable. It was denied that the respondent (appellant herein) and his family members are also registered as voters in SAS Nagar Mohali. It was claimed that they are residents of village Gholia Kalan and have exercised their voting rights in Legislative Assembly of Bagha Purana in 2006 at Sr.Nos.860 to 863. They were also enrolled in the electoral roll of 2003 in Legislative Assembly of Bagha Purana at Sr.Nos.506 to 510. Respondent denied to have violated the Act of 1994. From the pleadings, the followings are were framed:-