The importance of concise statement of material facts in an election petition as per Section 78(a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. Manjit Kaur w/o Hakam Singh and Daljeet Kaur w/o Rajwant Singh (appellants) have assailed the validity of order dated 12.11.2009 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib by which their election to the post of Panch (General Category) has been set aside and Paramjeet Kaur w/o Rachhpal Singh and Kulwinder Kaur w/o Phulwinder Singh (respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively) have been declared elected.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that election for the Gram Panchayat in village Sanipur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib was held on 26.5.2008 in order to fill up 9 posts of Panches comprising of four seats for woman (General Category), one seat for Scheduled Caste (male), one seat for Scheduled Caste (woman) and one seat for Backward Class. The appellants applied for two seats reserved for woman (General Category) and were elected whereas respondents No. 1 and 2 who did not apply in the woman (General Category) were considered in the General category where they had lost. Thus, both the respondents filed an election petition under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short `the Act), challenging the election of the appellants. The averments made in the election petition are that the election petitioners/respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed their nomination papers in the category of woman (General) whereas the appellants had also filed their nomination papers in the same category with them. All four of them were given election symbols in the category of Woman (General). The election petitioners had polled 29 and 20 votes respectively whereas, appellants No. 1 and 2 had obtained 2 and 10 votes respectively but the Presiding Officer considered the nomination paper of the election petitioners in the General category and declared both the appellants elected in the woman (General category). Since, election petitioners had less votes than those who had contested in the General category, therefore, they were declared to have been defeated.

3. As a matter of fact, the gist of the averments in the election petition is that the appellants had also filed their nomination papers in the Women General category and the only objection raised by the election petitioners is that their nomination papers have been wrongly considered in General category instead of Woman (General category).

4. Election petition was contested by both the appellants by filing a joint written statement in which they had denied that the election petitioners/respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed their nomination papers in the Woman (General category). In the written statement filed by respondent No. 9- Returning Officer, it was alleged that the election petitioner had filed nomination paper only in General category and not in the Woman (General category). After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed. Both the partied led their evidence. The Election Tribunal allowed the election petition observing that word woman General in the nomination paper of the appellants, which are Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 on record, has been added later and is in a different handwriting. It was also observed that if the election petitioners had not contested in the woman (General category) then there was no occasion for the Returning Officer to allot election symbols to the election petitioners as well as to the appellants because in that circumstances, both the appellants, who were the only candidates in the woman (General category) should have been elected unopposed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the aforesaid findings has drawn the attention of this Court to the nomination papers, which are attached as Annexure P-4, A, B and C with the present appeal in which election petitioners Paramjeet Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur did not mention their choice in the column of office to which they were contesting as they had simply mentioned as Panch whereas the appellants Manjit Kaur and Daljeet Kaur hav