BUDHAN SINGH Vs. PARSHOTTAM SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner) Mansa dated 29.08.2014 allowing the election petition preferred by respondent No. 1 challenging the election of the appellant -Budhan Singh for the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Dhalewan, Tehsil and District Mansa.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the election petition itself was not maintainable in the light of Sec. 76(1) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as '1994 Act'), according to which, the election petition could be filed by respondent No. 1 -Parshottam Singh in person, whereas nothing has come on record which would indicate that the election petition was presented by him. Referring to the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Tribunal, he contends that the election petition was presented by the counsel for the respondents. Even in the examination -in -chief, the respondent has not stated that the election petition was presented by him in person before the Tribunal. He, on this basis, contends that the Tribunal should have rejected the election petition on this ground alone. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Gurlal Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others,, 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 474.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 asserts that although it has not been specifically mentioned in the order dated 29.08.2014 of the Tribunal as also in the affidavit submitted in examination -in -chief, however, in the light of the affidavit, which has been appended along with the election petition, which is of the same date on which the election petition was presented, the presumption arises that respondent No. 1 -Parshottam Singh was present at the time of filing of the petition. He further states that the Tribunal has rightly proceeded to decide the election petition by setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was a convict and was released on probation. He contends that his nomination papers should have been rejected as per Sec. 123(2) of the Representation of People Act, which is applicable as per Sec. 11(k) of the 1994 Act. That apart, he contends that language of Sec. 76(1) of the 1994 Act does not indicate that the election petition has to be presented in person and in support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon Sec. 38(1) of 1994 Act, which deals with the presentation of the nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination where it has specifically been mentioned that the candidate could either present nomination papers in person or by his proposer. Reference has also been made by him to Rule 9 of The Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, where again dealing with Sec. 38 of 1994 Act, it has been mentioned that the candidate can submit his nomination papers in person. He, thus, contends that wherever the legislature intended that a particular act was required to be done in a particular manner, the same has been specifically provided for and in the present case, it has not been specified as to how the election petition has to be presented. The assertion of the counsel for the appellant that it has to be presented in person cannot be accepted. He, thus, contends that the present appeal deserves dismissal.