The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presentation of an election petition through an Advocate, in violation of Section 76(1) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, leads to the dismissal of the petition under Section 80. The court also clarified that the objection of non-compliance with Section 76(1) cannot be waived.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sunam, exercising the powers as Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Tehsil Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur by which election petition filed by Gurnam Singh (respondent No. 2) challenging the election of Gurlal Singh (appellant) has been allowed, the meeting dated 24.8.2008 in which the appellant was elected as Sarpanch has been cancelled and the meeting dated 24.7.2008 in which respondent No. 2. is alleged to have been elected, has been declared to be valid.

2. A brief skeletal facts of the case necessary to unfold the dispute between the parties are that a meeting of elected panches of Gram Panchayat, Jhaloor, Tehsil Lehra Gaga, District Satigrur for the purpose of election of Sarpanch was convened on 18.7.2008 at 2.p.m., but was adjourned due to lack of coram for 20.7.2008. However, it was again adjourned to 24.7.2008 as the Presiding Officer did not come present due to his ill health. According to the case of respondent No.2., in the meeting held on 24.7.2008, he was elected as a Sarpanch whereas according to the case of the appellant, meeting dated 24.7.2008 was adjourned to 24.8.2008 in which he was elected as Sarpanch. Admittedly, respondent No.2 filed a writ petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 14960 of 2008 titled as Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others seeking a direction that he should be declared as Sarpanch as per meeting dated 24.7.2008 and be notified as such. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.12.2008 with the following order :-

"The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to respondent No. 2 to declare him as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Jhaloor, PO Rai Dhirana, Tehsil Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur and thereafter notify his name.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meeting of the members of the Panchayat held on 24.7.2008, he was elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat but subsequently his election was not notified.

4. In the written statement, it has been stated that the proceedings of the meeting held on 24.7.2008 were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 22.8.2008 and thereafter a fresh meeting was called on 24.8.2008 and in the said meeting respondent No. 9 namely Gurlal Singh was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It has also been stated that the petitioner 16s remedy of filing an election petition, which admittedly has not been availed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no proper notice of the meeting held on 24.8.2008 was issued to the petitioner. However, after arguing for sometime, learned counsel submitted that in view of the disputed questions of facts raised in this writ petition and in view of decision of this court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 709: (CWP No. 13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the election of respondent No. 9 as Sarpanch in the meeting held on 24.8.2008 by filing an election petition on the ground that for the said meeting no proper notice was issued to the petitioner as well as other grounds. He has further submitted that since petitioner filed this petition within the prescribed limit of 45 days of the declaration of the result, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 529: (1996) 6 SCC 199, the petitioners may be granted three weeks time to file the election petition with direction to election Tribunal to decide that petition on merit.

6. Counsel for the respondent No. 9 has no objection if the election petition is filed by the petitioner.

7. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file an election petit