YAD RAM Vs. S P KAREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 8 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act wherein the application filed by Khem Chand for inspection of the ballot papers was allowed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - Yad Ram, is that this application has been allowed without reference to the record. It is pointed out that even if Khem Chand's allegations are accepted to be correct, only 18 persons are indicated to have voted when in fact those persons were either dead or were absent from the village on the date of the poll. According to the counsel for Khem Chand, it is submitted that, in fact, there were 20 persons who are of the aforesaid category. I have gone through the record and I find that the conclusion of the Prescribed Authority is not based on evidence. The determination of this question is important because if the number of such votes polled is below 19, then the result of the election would not materially effected and the examination of the ballot papers would be redundant. It is only if the number of such votes is 19 or is more than 19 that this question will assume importance.

(2.) I may as well deal with another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Yad Ram, namely, that there was no provision in the Act or the rules for inspection of the ballot papers. He also urged that if the provisions of the Representation of People's Act are kept in view, wherein there is a provision for inspection of ballot papers, it must be assumed that the framers of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act and the rules made thereunder deliberately did not make a similar provision. It is very difficult to say whether the omission is deliberate or is by oversight. Rule 36 under the Act requires that ballot papers etc. are to be forwarded by the Polling Officer to the Deputy Commissioner along with unused ballot papers etc. Rule 37 provides that Deputy Commissioner will retain the packets in tact for a period of one year after which they can be destroyed. From these rules, it appears that the object of keeping the ballot papers for one year was that occasion may arise when their inspection may be required, otherwise there was no point in keeping the ballot papers for a period of one year. Moreover, the tribunal has inherent power to allow inspection of the ballot papers or itself inspect the ballot papers, though that right has not been given by the statute or the rules to the parties. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that under no circumstances, the ballot papers can be inspected. It will depend on the facts of each case whether a case has been made out for the inspection of ballot papers or not and it is to be hoped that the Courts will not exercise this power without there being an adequate and proper case made out for inspection of the same. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel is repelled.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition, quash the order of the Prescribed Authority and remit the case to it with a direction to decide the application of Khem Chand in the light of the observations made above. The application has to be decided on the evidence on the record. No further evidence is to be permitted. The parties are directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 22nd November, 1965.