PARDAMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT point which falls for determination in this writ petition is that whether the prescribed authority in an election petition dispute can order recount of votes on a vague plea without framing an issue on an oral request without taking any evidence. Evidence of the Gram Panchayut Lande-Ke, Tehisl Moga, District Faridkot, was held on 18-1-1993. Elections were held under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (herein- after referred to as 'the Act') Pardaman Singh, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') was declared elected having secured the highest number ot votes. Mohinder Singh, respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as `respondent No. 4") obtained the second highest number of votes. Respondent No. 4 filed an election petition under Section 13-B of the Act on 29-1993, on the grourds on of commission of corrupt practices and polling of dead votes in favour of the petitioner. Prayer made was for setting aside the election of the petitioner and to hold a fresh election. No declaration under Section 13 (00) of the Act that respondent No. 4 be declared elected in place of the petitioner was made in para 5-G of the election petition, Annexure P-l. Vaguely, it has been mentioned that a recount be ordered which would bring the truth on the surface. On 2-12-1993, respondent No. 4 made an oral request for recount of the votes and agreed to give up all other claims stated in the petition. Prescribed authority, after hearing the counsel for the parties and feeling satisfied that the request of respondent No. 4 was in the interest of justice for a fair election, ordered the recount of the votes. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Moga, who was the Returning Officer was sent for alone with the relevant election record for 10-12-1993. The case could not be, taken up on the aforesaid date because the prescribed authority was busy with the visit of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Divi-sion, Ferozepur, to Moga. The case was adjourned for 14-12-1993. Block Development and Panchayat Officer produced the election record on 14-12-1993. In spite of the objections raised by the petitioner, rotes were recounted. Petitioner and his counsel refused to sign the proceedings of recount of votes. On a request made by the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for a further date. Petitioner moved an replication under Section 13-F of the Act, for transfer of the ekction petition to some other authority on which notice was issued by the Collector, Faridkot and further proceedings before the prescribed authority were stayed. Transfer application was finally dismissed by the Collector, Faridkot, on 22-2-1994. Respon- dent No. 4 moved an application before the prescribed authority along with a certified copy of the order of the Collector to lake up the case and decide the same on merits. Election petition was taken up on that very day. Ex parte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner because neither he nor his counsel appeared. Impugned order, An-nexure P-2, setting aside the election of the elected candidate as a result of recount, declaring respondent No. 4 as elected in place of the petitioner was passed.

(2.) PETITIONER had filed C. R. 763 of 1994 in this Court on the plea that the recount of the votes had been ordered without passing a written order. Revision petition came up for hearing on 28-2-1994. While issuing notice of motion for 19-4-1994, as an interim measure, it was ordered that the proceedings before the prescribed authority may go on but the final order be not passed. Petitioner produced this order before the prescribed authority in the evening but by that time, the prescribed authority had passed the impugned order, Annexure P-2. Petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for stay of the order, Annexure P-2. Petitioner prayed that charge of the office of Satpanch be not taken. Respondent No. 4 filed his reply claiming that he had already taken over the charge. In the light of conflicting claims of the parties, status quo was ordered to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal. Appeal was ultimately dismissed on 1-2-1995 vide order, Annexure P-3, which has been impugned in this writ petition along with order, Annexure P-2.

(3.) PETITIONER also filed a election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 4 before the prescribed authority as he had been declared elected by the impugned order, Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 4 took a preliminary objection that the election petition was not maintainable as he had been declared elected on an election petition filed by him and the order passed by the prescribed authority declaring him elected could only be challenged by filing an appeal and the same could not be challenged by filing an election petition. Thereafter, petitioner did not pursue the election petition filed by him, which was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution. These two facts have not been mentioned in the petition. Respondent No. 4 has taken a preliminary objection that non-disclosure of these facts amounts to concealment of material facts and the writ petition be dismissed on the ground of concealment of relevant and material facts from the Court.