NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khote, district Faridkot, in the election held on 24.9.1983 by securing 718 votes. He defeated Nikka Singh respondent No. 3 who secured 687 votes. Respondent No. 3 filed an election petition which is pending before the Prescribed Authority respondent No. 2, wherein he demanded inspection and recounting of the votes polled in the election. The petitioner objected to this demand. One of his objections was that the envelope containing the ballot papers being tern and there being no distinctive mark on the ballot papers so as to distinguish which vote was polled in favour of which particular candidate, the ballot papers could have been tampered with by their intermingling. In spite of this objection, respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 12.11.1984, Annexure P.1/A directed recount of the votes and as a result of the same concluded in the impugned order that while the petitioner had obtained 661 votes, respondent No. 3 had secured 687 votes, and one vote was invalid. He then adjourned the proceedings in the election petition to 20.11.1984 for arguments. It is admitted on both sides that the election petition is still pending before the Prescribed Authority and has not been finally decided. The petitioner through the present writ petition filed on 16.11.1985 has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order Annexure P.1/A and has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the said order. The petition has been contested by respondent No. 3, who has filed his written statement.

(2.) The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 at the threshold of the arguments has raised two vital preliminary objections. His first submission is that the impugned order is an interim order which does not dispose of the election petition as such. An appeal is provided by Section 13-V of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act , 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') from a final order in the election petition which lies with the District Judge. He, thus, contends that the present writ petition against the interim order is not competent. He next submitted that the impugned order was passed on 12.11.1984 while the present writ petition has been filed a year after that. It is therefore, highly belated and ought to be dismissed on this score.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that though the impugned order is interim in nature, it virtually decides the election petition in favour of respondent No. 3. As such the writ petition should be decided on merits. As regards laches, his submission is that since the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority respondent No. 2 are still pending the order Annexure P.1/A could be challenged at any time and in such a situation the petition could not be said to be belated.