MEGH RAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the State Election Commission announced election programme inter alia for elections to the office of Panch and Sarpanch of village Mohana by notification Annexure P -1 dated November 30, 1994. Nomination papers were to be filed during the period from December 1, 1994, to December 3, 1994 scrutiny on 6th December which was also fixed as the date of withdrawal and poll, if the same became necessary, was to be held on December 15, 1994. The case of the petitioners is that the BDPO, who was made the Returning Officer of the poll relating to Gram Panchayat Mohana, held a meeting on November 15,1994, in which inter alia it was announced that ward No. 4 was open to general category candidates and ward No. 8 had been reserved for a candidate belonging to backward class category. The two petitioners are stated to have filed their nomination forms Annexures P -4 and P -4/A respectively and also deposited the security of Rs. 50/ - each vide copies of receipts Annexures P -3 and P3/A respectively. These nomination forms had been filed from ward No. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that their nomination forms were found to be in order and they went to the Returning Officer for allotment of symbols on December 6, 1994. They were asked to come the next day and to their great surprise one Sat Pal was declared elected as unopposed on December 7, 1994. The election of said Sat Pal has been assailed mainly on two grounds, namely, (i) that according to the original announcement made by the Returning Officer on November 15, 1994, ward No. 4 had been declared as general and ward No. 8 had been declared as reserved for B.C. It was on this basis that the petitioners who belonged to the general category had filed nomination papers from ward No. 4 for contesting the elections but later on the reservation of B.C. category was shifted from ward No. 8 to ward No. 4, apparently after filing of the nomination, which could not be done, and (ii) that the election could be challenged under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the Rules framed thereunder, only on the ground of corrupt practice as defined in subsection (5) of section 176 of the Act. And that being so, this CWP was maintainable.

(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed by Mr. R.D. Dahiya, BDPO who was the Returning Officer of the election in question. The stand taken therein' is that notification regarding the delimitation of wards including reservation of particular wards to different categories was issued vide Annexure R -2 on October 6, 1994. According to the said notification, ward No. 4 had been reserved for B.C. category and ward No. 8 was for general category. There was, thus, no question of any change made by any one after the said notification. It was further pleaded that though the petitioners deposited the security amount of Rs. 50/ - each, they did not submit their nomination forms.