SURINDER SINGH Vs. GURMEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order passed by ADC-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amloh, Sub Division, District Fatehgarh Sahib whereby Election Petition filed by respondent (Gurmeet Kaur) under Section 76 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') has been allowed.

(2.) BROADLY , the facts of the case are that the respondent (Gurmeet Kaur) was elected as Panch of Gram Sabha Rupalheri, Block and Tehsil Bassi Pattana, District Fatehgarh Sahib in the category of Scheduled Caste (for short 'SC') women. The appellant (Surinder Singh) was also elected Panch in the SC category. The post of Sarpanch of Gram Sabha was reserved for a SC. The election for the post of Sarpanch was conducted on 16.7.2008 in which four Panches had participated namely, Amrik Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurmeet Kaur and Paramjit Kaur but no one could be elected because of the lack of quorum and the election was postponed for 18.7.2008. On that day, all the seven Member Panchayats of Gram Sabha were present. In that election, Returning Officer (respondent No. 2) declared that post of Sarpanch is meant for SC candidate and the appellant is the only SC Panch. As a result of which, respondent No. 1 and the other members, who were supporting her, walked out from the meeting and thereafter, the respondent No. 2 declared the appellant as an elected Sarpanch but the result was not announced. Respondent No. 1 along with other three Panches namely, Amrik Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Paramjit Kaur filed a Writ Petition No. 13598 of 2008 in this Court with a prayer that majority of the Panches are supporting her, therefore, she should be elected as Sarpanch. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.8.2008 with the following order: "This petition is disposed of with a direction to the Presiding Officer to declare the result of the election of Sarpanch to enable the petitioners to file an election petition to challenge that order." Pursuant to the order of this Court, result of the election was declared and the appellant was shown to have been elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This led to filing of the Election Petition by respondent No. 1 under Section 76 of the Act in which it was inter alia alleged that at the time when the proceedings were started in meeting held on 18.7.2008. The Returning Officer (respondent No. 2) had announced that post of Sarpanch is reserved for SC quota for which only Male SC can contest the election and no other person or woman can contest the said election. It was further alleged that in this manner, respondent No. 1 has been deprived off her legal right to contest and when she along with her supporter Panches walked out from the meeting out of anguish, the Returning Officer (respondent No. 2) declared the appellant as elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The Election Petition was contested by the respondent in which issues were framed and both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal found that Returning Officer did not properly apprise the members regarding the SC reserved seat and declared the appellant as Sarpanch being SC Male whereas the remaining four members were not in his favour and the said four panchayat members did not put their signatures on the said resolution and walked out of the meeting. The Tribunal, thus, set aside the election of the appellant and ordered for holding a fresh election in accordance with law. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.11.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court in which it has been, inter alia, urged that evidence available on record has been misread by the Tribunal inasmuch as Returning Officer had never stated that only SC Male can contest the election and as there is a categoric denial by the Returning Officer (respondent No. 2) that he had not stopped respondent No. 1 to contest the said election, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse.

(3.) FROM these facts available on record, it can very well be ascertained as to what had happened on the day when the meeting had taken place on 18.7.2008. Respondent No. 1 was definitely deprived of by Returning Officer to contest the election by giving an impression that only SC Male has a right to contest the election and not SC Female. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.