MEHLA Vs. ROOP RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Revision Petitions 1938 and 3003 of 1997 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, both of which arise out of the order dated 17.4.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehabad whereby he has set aside the election of Mehla son of Fauja Singh as sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hizrawan Kalan with a direction to the State of Haryana to hold fresh elections. While allowing the election petition, the Tribunal found that Nafe Singh and Suresh Kumar Kaswan who were the Presiding Officers of two polling booths were negligent in the performance of their duties and has directed then to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each from their salaries to the State Government as expenses for holding fresh election. Mehla has filed Civil Revision 1938 of 1997 challenging that part of the order whereby his election has been set aside whereas Nafe Singh and Suresh Kumar have filed the other petition challenging the direction given by the Election Tribunal against them.

(2.) Elections to the Gram Panchayat of village Hizrawan Kalan, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar were held on 11.12.1994. Petitioner along with Roop Ram and some others were candidates for the post of Sarpanch. Petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 12 votes. Room Ram respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehabad. The election was challenged on various grounds. It was alleged that there was double registration of votes inasmuch some of the persons who were registered as voters in Ward No. 1 were also registered as such in Ward No. 8 and some others from Ward No. 1 were registered in Ward No. 2 while some of the voters registered in Ward No. 3 were also registered in Ward No. 8. It was further alleged that the Presiding Officers of polling booths and the Returning Officer in connivance with and under the political influence of the returned candidate committed various illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of the election. It is stated that the votes at booths 107, 109 and 110 were counted and the result given to the Returning Officer, but the Presiding Officers of booths at Khan Mohammad and Daulatpur (booths 105, 106 and 108) did not count the votes there and took the ballot boxes without seals to Hizrawan Kalan where those were counted in the absence of the election petitioner or his representatives and that the counting staff in connivance with the returned candidate committed various irregularities. The violation of various provisions of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules (for short the Rules) was also alleged. The petition was contested by the petitioner and one Daultat Ram son of Ram Kumar who filed their written statements controverting the allegations made in the election petition. It was averred that the election was held in accordance with the statutory provisions and that no illegality or irregularity as alleged was committed at any stage throughout the elections. It was also pleaded that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and that the same was liable to be dismissed. Respondent 1 who was the election petitioner filed a rejoinder controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reiterated those in the election petition.

(3.) When the election petition came up for hearing before the court on 13.9.1995 the election petitioner and the returned candidate agreed that the votes be recounted and the result declared accordingly. The election petitioner gave up all other grounds of challenge to the election of the returned candidate. The election petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which was payable to the returned candidate as costs in the eventuality of the petition being dismissed. By a separate order passed on that date the court ordered the recounting of votes and directed the authorities to produce the election record. Shri R.K. Chhabra, government pleader was appointed court nominees/local commissioner for scrutiny and computation of votes. The election record was produced in court on 17.11.1995 but the same was not complete. Since, the complete record was not produced despite repeated opportunities the court by an order dated 6.6.1996 framed the following two issues :-