KARNAIL KAUR Vs. BALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial questions are involved in this appeal :

(2.) THE case of the appellant is that she is a permanent resident of village Luthera, Tehsil Ratia having vote No. 196 serial No 56 in ward No 2. It is alleged that on 9.4.2005, elections to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Luthera were held and polling took place in Government Primary School, Luthera where 456 votes were polled. The Returning Officer announced 222 votes in favour of the appellant, 220 votes in favour of the respondent, 13 votes were declared cancelled, one vote was found missing and the appellant was declared elected by margin of 2 votes. But later on, the result was changed by the Returning officer who announced that both the appellant and respondent have secured 219 votes each, 17 votes were invalid, one vote was found missing and since there was an equality of votes and a tie, the Returning Officer (Panchayat) by toss of a coin, which fell in favour of the respondent, declared him as Sarpanch. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent under Section 176 of the Act by filing an Election petition but that was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Ratia vide his order dated 12.4.2007. The appellant then filed appeal which was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Fatehabad vide his judgment and decree dated 8.11.2007.

(3.) IT is correct that to deal with a contingency of equality of votes or a tie, Rule 71 has been provided in the Rules, which is reproduced as under for ready reference :