JAI PARKASH Vs. BAL MUKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of two FAOs bearing No. 12 and 499 of 2005, as the same is the result of one and the same election of Councilor of Municipal Council and as such involve the common question of law and facts. The facts are being taken from FAO No.12 of 2005. The order dated December 14, 2004, passed by the Election Tribunal upon the election petition presented under Section 76 read with sections 89 and 90 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with rules 87,88 and 89 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"),has been made the subject matter of challenge.

(2.) The elections to the Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh were held on March 9, 2003. The candidates filed their nominations for contesting the elections. As per respondent No.1, the contest was between the appellant himself i.e. Jai Parkash son of Surjit Singh and Balmukand son of Shri Muni Lal. Balmukand contested as a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party and Jai Parkash contested as nominee candidate of Congress party. Both had contested from ward No.18 of Municipal Council, Gobindgarh. Jai Parkash had been declared elected in the aforesaid election as a Municipal Councilor. Balmukand was not satisfied with the election and the same has been challenged under the aforesaid provisions upon the grounds spelt out in para 4 of the petition.

(3.) The election petition had been contested by Jai Parkash by way of submitting detailed written statement to the averments made in the election petition. The allegations made in para 4 of the petition have been refuted accordingly. Respondents No. 3 and 4 also submitted written statement by making the submissions, with a prayer that the petition be dismissed. The Presiding Officer had also been impleaded as respondent No.5, who has also submitted written statement with a prayer that the petition be dismissed. Similarly, the Returning Officer, has also been impleaded as respondent No.6, who has also submitted written statement with a prayer that the petition be dismissed. Replications to the written statement of respondent No.1 as also all other respondents have been filed. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues had been framed: