SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though it appears that the petitioner has been wrongly excluded to contest the election, the facts and circumstances of this case are such that no meaningful relief can yet be granted to him. Spelled in narrow compass the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition by Surinder Singh, petitioner herein, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to hold elections of Ward No. 5 of village Navipar, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala on the basis of the directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 15th of December, 1994 and further to issue any writ, order or direction, reveal that in the general elections of Gram Panchayats, the date of filing the nomination papers was fixed between 1st of December, 1994 to 3rd of December,1994, for. the elections to be held on 19th of December, 1994. The petitioner filed his nomination papers on 3rd of December, 1994 and the scrutiny was held on 5th of December, 1994. The nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected on the sole ground that the father of the petitioner was in illegal possession of the land owned by the panchayat. That being so, Gurdip Singh respondent No. 4 was declared elected on 7th of December, 1994. Being aggrieved, the petitioner prior is point of time filed C. W. P. in this Court bearing No, 17913 of 1994 which came up for final disposal before a Division Bench of this Court on 15th of December, 1994. The operative part of the order reads as under :

(2.) FROM the array of facts as given above, the sole contention of Mr. G. S. Grewal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that order dated 15th of December, 1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court referred to above necessarily entails fresh election for Ward No. 5 as well, as otherwise there was no question for the Court to have ordered allotment of symbol to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. As mentioned above, even though it appears that the petitioner has been wronged as he has been debarred from contesting the election, no meaningful relief perhaps can be allowed to him at this stage. It is true that his nomination papers were rejected on wholly untenable grounds and he succeeded in the writ petition filed by him on that behalf but unfortunately the relief which ought to have been asked for by him at that stage was never asked for from the Court. Concededly, by the time the petition referred to above came to be allowed with the directions as reproduced above, the result of election of Ward No. 5 had already been declared. That being so, the petitioner could not remain content by simply as- king the Court to direct the respondents to allot him a symbol. He ought to have pressed for setting aside of election of respondent No. 4. That relief was never asked for and was thus, not given. However, in pursuance of the orders in the writ petition aforesaid he was allotted a symbol and even though there was re-election for other wards, there could not be any re-election for Ward No. 5 for which the petitioner was a nominee as such a direction was never obtained from the Court. The relief asked for now i. e. to set aside the election of respondent No. 4 was available to the petitioner at the time when be filed his earlier petition and he ought to have asked for the same. It is settled law that all relief/reliefs for a particular cause of action have to be joined in one suit or writ petition as the case may be. Even a second suit for a relief which was available when the first suit was filed is, barred by provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, perhaps, nothing can be done and the Court is left with no choice but for to dismiss the writ petition. So ordered. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.