CHUNI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHUNI Lal Petitioner is a member of the Panchayat Samiti. Rewari Khol Block and was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Siha. Tehsil Rewari, District Gurgaon. When two Panches had to be elected as members of the Zila Parishad in February, 1965 the Petitioner is alleged to have been called by the then Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari, and is alleged to have been not only persuaded but also coerced to withdraw from the candidature to the membership of the Zila Parishad in favour of Hari Singh (Respondent No. 5). According to the Petitioner the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) was a scheduled caste man and was, therefore, desiring Hari Singh, who is a Harijan, to be elected. The Petitioner declined to withdraw and fought at the election, which was held on the 16th February, 1965. During the polling, Chuni Lal, Petitioner and two others submitted a written complaint to Respondent No. 4, who happened to be the returning officer, alleging that certain voters had cast two votes each in favour of one and the same candidate and praying that such ballot papers, which showed the casting of two votes by the same elector in favour of one candidate, should be rejected. Annexure 'A' is a copy of the complaint. It is admitted that the returning officer did not scrutinise ballot papers in question and did not decide whether they were valid or not. The Petitioner's case is that at that time the returning officer merely endorsed on the original of Annexure 'A' the words "received one copy" and signed and dated the above -mentioned endorsement. The endorsement, which is now admittedly present on the original of Annexure 'A' above the signatures of Sub -Divisional Officer, Rewari, dated the 16th February, 1965, reads "received one copy after the declaration of the result". The case of the Respondent is that the application was in fact given after the result of the contest had been declared. Though this allegation of the Respondent does not appear to be -correct from the circumstances of the case, I am not basing my judgment on the allegation of Petitioner to the contrary. The fact remains that on the same day the Petitioner sent a telegram to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, reading as follows:

(2.) IN reply to the telegram letter, dated February 29, 1965V (Annexure B) was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Petitioner informing him that no action was possible on the telegram and advising him to seek his remedy in accordance with law. The Petitioner thereupon filed an election petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, on February 24, 1965. This action of the Petitioner is claimed to have upset Respondent No. 4, who is alleged to have acted in concert with Hari Singh, (Respondent No. 5)' to bring the Petitioner to trouble. Be that as it may, the election petition filed by the Petitioner was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, by her order dated October 20, 1965 (Annexure C), wherein it was held that in fact nine ballot papers cast in favour of Hari Singh had been marked by the voters twice and the said voters had, therefore, cast both the votes of the double member constituency in favour of one and the same candidate which was not in accordance with law. The allegation made by the Petitioner in the election petition having been found to be correct, the learned Deputy Commissioner held the election of Hari Singh void and set it aside.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY no enquiry was held after the receipt of the Petitioner's reply. The Petitioners was not given any opportunity to substitute the allegations made by him in his above -mentioned representation. No witness was examined in presence of the Petitioner who might have given evidence against the allegations made by the Petitioner. Straightaway an order dated February 14, 1966 (Annexure G), was served on the Petitioner. The order was issued by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab. Its opening part reads as follows: