JOGINDER KAUR Vs. ANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The elections of Municipal Council, Kharar had taken place on 9-3-2003. Joginder Kaur-appellant and Anju respondent No.1 had mainly contested the elections against each other among others in Ward No. 4. The results were declared on the same date and Joginder Kaur appellant was declared elected for having secured 608 votes against 605 votes secured by Anju respondent No. 1. Anju respondent No.1 filed an election petition on 27-7-2003. The learned Election Tribunal vide order dated 8-9-2004 directed recounting of votes on 24-9-2004. However, the appellant filed CR No.4436 of 2004 against the said order which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 8-10-2004 and the order dated 8-9-2004 was set aside. Anju respondent No. 1 filed Civil Appeal No. 4463 of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) 23073 of 2004, which was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25-7-2005. The order of this Court dated 8-10-2004 was set aside and the order of the Election Tribunal dated 8-9-2004 was restored. The parties were directed to appear before the Election Tribunal on 8-8-2005. Thereafter, the learned Election Tribunal held recounting of votes on 16-8-2005, in which it was found that Anju respondent No. 1 secured 609 votes, while Joginder Kaur secured 608 votes and the file was adjourned for arguments of remaining issues on 24-8-2005 and after arguments, the learned election Tribunal vide order dated 29-8-2005 accepted the election petition by which the election of Joginder Kaur appellant was set aside and Anju respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured one vote more than the votes secured by Joginder Kaur appellant.

(2.) Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed by Joginder Kaur appellant.

(3.) One of the points which had come up for consideration before the Election Tribunal was that there were two voters at serial numbers 116 land 1162 in the voter's list of Ward No.4, who had polled their votes. It was objected to by the respondent on the plea that they were underage and were not eligible to be voters. The objections were filed in the statutory form after depositing the necessary fees. The Presiding Officer, permitted these two voters to vote but these votes were kept in a separate envelope. Learned Election Tribunal had held that by keeping these two votes in separate envelope, the secrecy of votes has been violated and therefore, these two votes cannot be counted as valid votes. It was not disputed that these two votes were in favour of the appellant.