LAWS(P&H)-1996-10-174

BIR DEVINDER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Decided On October 01, 1996
Bir Devinder Singh Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bir Devinder Singh and others writ-petitioners have filled this writ petition stating that they contested the election to the Panchayat Samiti, Bassi Pathana, in the election held on 26th February, 1975. After the election, the Returning Officer on counting of the votes announced the result and declared all the petitioners and respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 as elected to the Panchayat Samiti. Sukhjit Singh, respondent No. 2, who was defeated at the polls for the membership of the said Panchayat Samiti filed an election petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, respondent No. 1, in his capacity as the prescribed authority, challenging the election of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The grounds taken by respondent No. 2 were that quite a number of the votes polled for the petitioners nd respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were invalid and were wrongly counted towards declaration of the result in favour of the winning candidates. Inspite of his objections the Returning Officer did not recount the votes. He further alleged that majority of the ballot papers were wrongly crossed (X) by the voters, which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the voters and thus violate the secrecy of the voting. The petitioners contested the correctness of their allegations before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority, according to the petitioners, without finding a prima facie case made out ordered the examination of the ballot papers for the purpose of record. After the examination of the ballot papers the prescribed authority passed the orders holding that majority of the ballot papers were invalid on the ground that the cross mark (X) was placed instead of against column 4 of the ballot papers, on the symbol or the name of the candidates or above or below the symbol in the column of the candidates. Rejecting the big number of the votes, which according to the petitioners were validly cast, respondent No. 1 set aside the election and ordered a re-poll. Through this petition the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of respondent No. 1 which is annexed to the petition as Annexure P.1 to the extent of setting aside the election of the petitioners.

(2.) Notice was sent to the respondents but none of them contested except respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 1 has not filed any return.

(3.) The annexures to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala in his capacity as the prescribed authority hearing election petition under Section 121 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, contain the details of the ballots polled by each of the candidates. The details of the ballot papers, which were in the view of the prescribed authority valid or invalid, have been given in these annexures under the name of each candidate.