LAWS(P&H)-1995-9-49

RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On September 06, 1995
RAJBIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the election as Sarpanch of respondent No. 4, namely, Balbir Singh on the ground that he was not qualified to contest the election as per provisions of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules).

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that elections of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar were held on 19.12.1994 in which besides the petitioner, respondent No. 4, namely, Balbir Singh and Jamadar and Harpal contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Balbir Singh, respondent No. 4 was declared duly elected. His election has been challenged in this petition on the ground that respondent No. 4 was registered as voter of village Fakir Majra and the said village falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Boothgarh, District Yamuna Nagar and his wife is also registered as voter in the same village, therefore, he could not contest the election' to Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan. It has also been stated that on objection raised against the names of respondent No. 4 and his wife being included in Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan, Deputy Commissioner -cum -District Electoral Officer, Yamuna Nagar, ordered deletion of their names from the voters list of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan. The City Magistrate, after finalisation of voters list, ordered publication of the same on 20.10.1994 as provided under Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Election Rules. It has further been alleged that although voters list became final, respondent No. 4 exercising his influence on the District Electoral Officer, got himself and the name of his wife registered in the voters list of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan. The order of District Electoral Officer vide which names of respondent No. 4. and his wife have been included, is also being challenged being without jurisdiction.

(3.) Two sets of written statements have been filed, one by the official respondents and the other by respondent No. 4, the contesting respondent. In the written statement, besides taking preliminary objection, respondents have questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to invoke the extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any election petition in Civil Court within 30 days after the date of declaration of result of the elections. They have also averred that the writ petition involves disputed facts and the petitioner has concealed material facts from the notice of this court. Respondents have denied that election of respondent No. 4 is not legal.