Back
1994 Supreme(P&H) 1073
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Grewal and M.L.Koul JJ.
Guddi Devi
Versus
State Election Commissioner, Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 18057 of 1994,
Decided On : DECEMBER 20, 1994
The objections concerning illegal rejection or acceptance of nomination papers or irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls form an important part of the election process and can be challenged in an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Headnote:
ELECTION - REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPERS - ELECTION PETITION - GROUNDS - CORRUPT PRACTICE - ILLEGAL REJECTION OR ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATION PAPERS - IRREGULARITIES IN PREPARATION OF ELECTORAL ROLLS - WHETHER CAN BE CHALLENGED IN ELECTION PETITION - HARYANA PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994, SEC. 176(1), (4) - HARYANA PANCHAYATI RAJ ELECTION RULES, 1994, RULE 30 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 243(F), (K), (O).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, candidates for the office of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat elections in Haryana, challenged the rejection of their nomination papers by the Returning Officer on the ground that they were in unauthorized possession of Panchayat land. They contended that there was no specific remedy under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, or the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994, to challenge the rejection of their nomination papers before any higher authority or election forum.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the objections concerning illegal rejection or acceptance of nomination papers or irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls form an important part of the election process and cannot be delinked or taken to be unimportant or remote stages in the entire electoral process. The Court further held that the provision of Section 176(4)(a) of the Act for setting aside the election of a candidate on the basis of corrupt practice within the meaning of subsection (5) cannot be interpreted to mean that the only ground for setting aside the election would be on the basis of corrupt practice and not on the basis of illegal rejection or acceptance of nomination papers or illegalities or irregularities committed in the preparation of electoral rolls.
Issues: Whether the rejection of nomination papers by the Returning Officer can be challenged in an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 176(1) and (4) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and Rule 30 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994, to hold that the objections concerning illegal rejection or acceptance of nomination papers or irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls can be challenged in an election petition. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court decisions in N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Distt., AIR 1952 SC 64, and Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233, to hold that the word "election" in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India was used in a comprehensive sense as including the entire process of election commencing with the issue of a notification and terminating with the declaration of election of a candidate.
Final Decision: The Court held that the petitioners, if so advised, may file an election petition concerning their grievances according to law and procedure.
S.S.GREWAL and J JJ.
1. This order shall dispose of the present writ petitioner as well as civil Writ Petitions Nos. 17757 of 1994, 17775 of 1994, 18144 of 1994, 17831 of 1994, 17871 of 1994, 17880 of 1994, 18045 of 1994, 18060 of 1994, 18064 of 1994 and 18100 of 1994, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these writ petitions.
2. We have taken the facts from this petition in order to decide the question of law enunciated in all these petitions. According to the averments made in this petition the State of Haryana decided to hold elections of Gram Panchayat in the State of Haryana. In accordance with the election programme the candidates were required to file their nomination papers before the competent authority from Ist of December, 1994 to 3rd of December, Thereafter the scrutiny by the Returning Officer was to be hold on 5th of December, 1994 and the candidates were permitted to withdraw from the election upto 6th of December, l994. The petitioner and three other candidates had also submitted their nomination papers for contesting the election for the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Kangthal. The nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected by Block Development and Panchayat Officer respondent No. 4 on the basis of report of the Tehsildar, Guhla on the ground that Mulkh Raj (husband of the petitioner) is in unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land bearing Khasta No. 136. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 9th of December, 1994 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal on the ground that nomination papers of the petitioner had been rejected illegally and with mala fide intention. It was pleaded that none of her family member was in unauthorised possession of the Gram Panchayat. Apart from that it was pleaded that the petitioner was paying separate Chuhla tax. It was further pleaded that according to the entry in the Jasmabandi for the year 1988-89 the ownership of the land in Khasra No. 136 is shown to be as panchayat Deh whereas under cultivation column it is mentioned that the same is in possession of common purpose (Makbuja Rafay-am) and in column No. 8 the said. Khasra No. is recorded as Gair Gorah Deh. It was next pleaded that even in the latest Khasra Girdawri for the year 1994 neither the petitioner nor any member of her family is shown to be in unauthorised possession of the land and that her nomination papers were rejected on thebasis of political pressure and also because of the reasons that wife of Billu Ram exM.L.A. and his brothers wife had also filed nomination papers for the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Kangthal.
3. Similarly in C.W.P. No. 18100 of 1994 re: Manjit Singh V/s. State Election Commission, Haryana, C.W.P. No. 17775 of 1994 re: Sakooli Bai etc. V/s. S.D.O. (C) Fatehabad, C.W.P. No.18045 of 1994 Onkar Mal V/s. The State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 17871 of 1994 Gian Chand V/s. S.D.O. (C) Fatehabad, C.W.P. No.17757 of 1994 Dalip, V/s. The Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, C.W.P. No. 17831 of 1994 Sahabu Deen V/s. State of Harayana and C.W. P. No. 18144 of 1994 re: Mangal Singh V/s. Haryana State the objections raised by the individual petitioner is with regard to illegal rejection of their nomination papers whereas in C.W.P. No.18060 of 1994 re: Hurmat V/s. District Election Officer (Panchayats) and C.W.P. No. 18068 of 1994 re : Dhanno Devi V/s. State of Haryana the objection is regarding quashment of voters lists prepared and notified for the present election and C.W.P. No. 17880 of 1994 relates to alleged illegal acceptance of nomination papers.
4. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4 preliminary objection was raised that Bassis Devi wife of Dhilla Ram had already been declared as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat unopposed in due course of law. It was also pleaded that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of shamilat land and has no right to contest the election of Gram Panchayat and her nomination pap
