KIRPAL SINGH Vs. PREET MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KIRPAL Singh son of Gurbax Singh has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against Preet Mohinder Singh, respondent No. 1 and respondents 2 and 3 (proforma respondents), for quashing of the order of the Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur), dated 6.7.1999 passed in Election Petition No. 77 of 1998, vide which the Tribunal ordered for the recount of the ballot papers.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that the elections of the Gram Panchayat, Bhai-ke-Bhasaur, District Sangrur, took place on 21.6.1998. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 contested the office of the Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 27 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition No. 77 of 1998 before the Tribunal under Section 77 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Among the relief claimed, the respondent No. 1 further made a prayed that the result declared on 21.6.1998 declaring the petitioner as winning candidate for the post of Sarpanch be set aside and the election be declared void and he himself claimed to be declared as a winning candidate for the post of the Sarpanch. He claimed the recounting of the votes for the election of the Sarpanch. The Tribunal vide its order dated 6.7.1999 ordered the recount of the votes and directions were given to respondent No. 1 for recounting of the votes on 19.7.1999. The petitioner submits the order dated 6.7.1999, Annexure P-1, is liable to be quashed because the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and that respondent No. 1 had not made out any case for recounting. It is alleged by the petitioner that the order, Annexure P-1, is merely based on the report of the S.D.M., Patiala (S.D.M., Moonak, at the relevant time), which is totally based on conjectures and surmises. Even if the report of the S.D.M. is taken on its face value, still it does not help respondent No. 1 as the petitioner was declared Sarpanch with a margin of 27 votes whereas as per the report of the SDM, the votes of respondent No. 1 could be increased by 10 to 15 votes. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on Annexure P-6 is wholly without jurisdiction and that respondent No. 2 had exercised his authority wrongly and illegally. At the time of declaring the result of the election, nobody objected regarding the seal and way of election. Rather, it has been admitted by respondent No. 1 that the election has been conducted in a proper and right way. So much so, he gave his signatures on the writing dated 21.6.1998. The impugned order, Annexure P-1, has been passed in a very hasty manner without giving opportunity to the petitioner, who could not produce his counsel on the relevant date of the passing of the order because of the operation. Even the Returning Officer filed the written statement before the Tribunal and categorically stated that the election was conducted in a lawful manner and both the parties had inspected all the votes polled which were acceptable or rejectable. At the end of the counting of the votes Kirpal Singh and Preet Mohinder Singh and their agents had given in writing that they were satisfied with the conducting of the election process of the Gram Panchayat and that they had no objection to the same.

(3.) THE matter came up for hearing before Hon'ble K.K. Srivastava, J. on 19.7.1999 who passed the following order :- "Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply to the C.M. Reply may be filed within ten days. The recount of the ballot papers, if not already commenced, shall not take place till further orders. To come up for hearing on the date already fixed i.e. 24.8.1999."