MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of annexure P -l dated 9.3.1994 and annexure P -2 dated 29.7.1994 or for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction as the Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. An election to the Gram Panchayat was held on 22.1.1993, in which petitioner and Jaswant Singh -respondent No. 3 alone contested to the post of Sarpanch of the village. In all, 1624 votes were polled in which the petitioner secured 831 votes whereas respondent No. 3 secured 793 votes and so the petitioner was declared to have been elected with a margin of 38 votes. Petitioner accordingly took charge as Sarpanch of the village and started discharging its functions till date without any complaint either from authorities or any resident of the village. The election of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 3 on the ground that petitioner did not make and subscribe before the Returning Officer an oath of affirmation in the form specified and so he was not eligible to contest the election, this way his nomination paper has been illegally accepted -Other grounds urged by respondent N o. 3 in his election petition were that votes were polled in favour of the petitioner of persons who were dead prior to the date of polling and this was done in connivance with the Presiding Officer that votes were polled twice with regard to certain persons. Similarly, some votes were polled in the name of such persons who were never present during the polling hours and so on. The election petition filed by the defeated candidate was contested by the petitioner and in his written statement specific denial was made with regard to the material averments made in the election petition. According to the answering respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate exercising the powers of Prescribed Authority under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules examined the matter in the light of the pleadings of the parties, framed appropriate issues permitting the parties to adduce evidence and finally after scrutinizing the evidence led came to the conclusion that petitioner did not affirm the oath prescribed and so his nomination papers had been illegally accepted. Resultantly, the petition was accepted and the election of Mohinder Singh -petitioner was set aside.

(2.) The appellate Court also found no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner -appellant and so dismissed the appeal as well. With these broad averments it was stated that the writ petition was wholly incompetent and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Otherwise too, there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner complied with the mandatory provisions with regard to the affirmation of oath at the time of submission of nomination form and so his nomination paper had been illegally accepted and rightly held by the Prescribed authority as well as by the appellate Court,

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit dated 6.7.1995 making averment to the effect that the matter between the contending parties stands compromised and so the answering respondent does not wish to pursue the civil writ petition. Court vide its interim order desired Advocate General, Punjab to be heard before passing any order on the interim civil miscellaneous No. 6853 of 1995, praying for disposal of the writ petition on the; basis of affidavit filed by Jaswant Singh -respondent No. 3. Before the matter could be disposed of one Mohinder Singh son of Jagir Singh, a resident of the village has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that Jaswant Singh -respondent has colluded with the petitioner and so he be permitted to contest the petition being a resident of the village and he be infact impleaded in place of respondent No. 3. It is in these circumstances that the Court directed that both the civil miscellaneous, one filed by Jaswant Singh and other by Mohinder Singh be heard and decided with the main case.