DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned orders dated 8.1.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat as well as dated 31.5.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat under Section 176 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act').

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that Prem Chand-respondent No.3 filed election petition to challenge the election of the petitioner under Section 176 of the Act on the ground that he produced forged and fabricated documents while filing nomination for the post of Sarpanch and contested the election. He was not qualified to contest the election as he did not possess the requisite qualification. Said election petition was allowed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide its judgment dated 31.5.2017 and election of Sarpanch was declared null and void being contrary to provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by aforesaid judgment dated 31.5.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional District Judge, Panipat, which was also dismissed vide order dated 8.1.2018 and the judgment passed by the Civil Court was affirmed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders are liable to the set aside on the ground that the election petition was not maintainable as the election petition was not filed in person. As per provisions of Section 176 of the Act read with Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, it is mandatory to file election petition in person. Learned counsel further submits that certificate of the 8th class was kept by the school authorities and it was never issued to the concerned candidate but this fact was not considered by both the Courts below. Learned counsel also submits that it has been proved on record that the petitioner was eligible to contest the election as he was having certificate of transfer of the school, which clearly shows that he has passed middle class examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Chandrika Misir and another v. Bhaiyalal 1973 AIR (SC) 2391, Gauri Shanker v. M/s Hindustran Trust and others 1972 RCJ 850, of this Court in cases of Haryana Financial Corporation v. Deepak Singhal and another 2017 (5) RCR (Civil) 38, Rohtash through LRs v. State Election Commission and others (C.R. No. 5641 of 2016, decided on 9.9.2016) and Raj Kumar v. Mukhtyar Singh and others 2011 (3) PLR 44 in support of his contentions.