HARBANS SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cross petitions Nos. 2252 and 2416 of 1985 are directed against the same order of the appellate authority under section 13-V of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act as applicable to Haryana (for short, the Act) and thus deserve to be disposed of through this common order.

(2.) Election to the office of Sarpanch of village Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal, was held on June, 25, 1985. The two petitioners, Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh, respectively, were the contestants. As a result of polling, the Presiding Officer declared Sukhdev Singh to have won the election, having polled 1478 votes. As against this Harbans Singh had polled only 1177 votes. Later Harbans Singh challenged this election through a petition under section 13-C of the Act. The primary plea taken in the petition was that dead and absentee votes had been polled through impersonation and this had materially affected the result of the election. During the course of trial that followed, Harbans Singh made an application on March 18, 1985 that the votes polled in favour of the two contestants deserved to be recounted. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on that application, the prescribed authority passed the following order of April 15, 1985 :-

(3.) Harbans Singh now in this revision petition while impugning this order of the appellate authority contends that even if no specific prayer for his being declared as a Sarpanch as a result of the recount or otherwise was made in the election petition, the said relief had rightly been granted to him by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority could not upset that order merely on the ground that no such relief had been prayed for in the petition. On the other hand in Civil Revision No. 2416, the stand of Sukhdev Singh is that the recount of votes could not possibly be upheld by the appellate authority in view of the fact that there was a lot of tampering with the election record as well as the ballot papers cast in favour of the two contestants. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties I am of the firm opinion that in the instant case the order of the appellate authority deserves to be upheld.