MEWA DEVI Vs. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Mewa Devi through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 30. 3. 1996 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana whereby the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Udaypur has been set aside and respondent No. 2 Smt. Sheon Devi has been declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) BRIEF facts if the case reveal that election for the office of Sarpanch in village Udaypur was held on 15. 12. 1994 and the result of the election was declared on the same day. Petitioner was declared to have been elected. He secured 629 votes whereas respondent No. 2628 votes. Respondent No. 3 secured only 6 votes and 40 votes were found to be invalid. Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana (exercising the powers of the Election Tribunal Under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 19. 94) challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds. During the course of proceedings respondent No. 2 made a statement that she does not want to press other allegations and the case be decided after recounting of votes. The Counsel for the petitioner also made a statement that he would have no objection to the recounting of votes. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel representing the parties, the Election Tribunal summoned the votes polled in the election of Sarpanch of village Udaypur which were produced in Court by one Babu Ram, Patwari on 6. 2. 1995. There were total of four packets containing the votes polled in election. Out of these packets, one packet was not properly sealed and was torn from one side from which the votes can be put or removed as is the case of the petitioner. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that since the envelope was in a torn form on one side and the possibility of the ballot papers having been tampered with could not be ruled out, there was no need for fresh counting as such. The Tribunal, however, vide his order dated 22. 3. 1995 held that there was no point to recount and scrutinise the total votes and proceeded on the basis that the decision of the Returning Officer was correct. Since there was no other ground on which election petition could proceed except recounting, therefore, the election petition was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 223-1995. Being aggrieved respondent No. 2 filed Civil Writ Petition 10963 of 1995. The order dated 22. 3. 1995 passed by the Election Tribunal was set aside and the petition was allowed in the following terms:

(3.) IN view of the discussion made above, this petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-2 is Quashed thus upholding the election of the petitioner on the post of Sarpanen.