RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner secured 142 votes while respondent No. 6 secured 52 votes. However, the election of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 6, inter alia on the ground that nomination papers of Rajinder Singh were improperly accepted as the Society of whom he was a representative, was a defaulter as envisaged by law. The Additional Registrar as well as the Registrar before whom the petition and appeal were filed found that there was no default, and dismissed the petition and the appeal. However, the learned Commissioner found that the Society was a defaulter up to 31-5-1988. Resultantly, he set aside the election and declared respondent No. 6 as duly elected. The order has been challenged inter alia contending that there was no default as well as that the petition by respondent No. 6 was not competent. Reliance has been placed on Tejinder Paul Mann v. The State of Haryana and others, [1978 PLJ 120].

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent refutes the submissions made and contends that (i) there is no application for stay, (ii) admittedly, on the date the nomination papers were filed, he had raised an objection that the Society was a defaulter. Consequently, the nomination papers could not have been accepted though a receipt with respect to deposit of P s. 500, was produced and it was stated by the petitioner that the Society was no more a defaulter as no certificate to the effect that the Society was not the defaulter was produced. The Commissioner while exercising the revisional jurisdiction found by addressing correspondence to the Society that the Society was in default to the extent of Rs. 43 upto 31-5-1988. At this stage, the counsel contends that the Commissioner relied upon the documents produced by Rajindec Singh petitioner.

(3.) In my considered view, the contention raised by the counsel for the respondent prima facie, cannot be accepted. The Commissioner exercising revisional jurisdiction had no jurisdiction to receive the evidence in particular without any opportunity being given to the parties. Though at this stage, counsel for the respondent states that the Commissioner has not received any additional evidence, the matter will be finally determined at the time of disposal of the writ petition on merits.