GURNEK SINGH Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant appeal order dated November 25, 2004, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Election Tribunal, Ropy, exercising the powers under the Punjab Panchayati Raj, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been challenged.

(2.) The facts need to be noticed are that State of Punjab issued declaration to hold election of Gram Panchayats in the entire State of Punjab in the year 2003. The date notified for the elections was June 29, 2003. The appellant, as also Surinder Singh, respondent No. 1 filed their nomination papers for the office of Sarpanch of Village Bhago Majra with Hadbast No. 210 of District Ropar. The nomination papers were found in order and both the aforesaid persons contested the election. The votes were polled and upon counting thereof, it was found that the appellant secured 261 votes and respondent No. 1 i.e. Surinder Singh secured 260 votes. Resultantly, the appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch by one vote. Respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with the election process and resultantly insisted upon recount of the votes at the relevant time, which was carried out three times and every time the votes counted came out to be the same. Still not satisfied, respondent No. 1 filed election petition under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The petition was contested by the appellant by way of submitting a detailed reply by controverting the allegations accordingly.

(3.) Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issue was framed: Whether the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside on the basis of allegations leveled against him?