Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1143
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permod Kohli and Rakesh Kumar Garg, JJ.
Balwinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CWP No. 10547 of 2008.
Decided On : 13 June, 2008
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.P. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain & Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Deepika, Mr. P.K. Gupta, Mr. S.S. Brar, Mr. S.S. Swaich, Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Mr. S.S. Walia, Mr. C.L. Pawar Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Mr. Amit Singh, Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Mr. A.L. Bahri and Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab and Mr. P.C. Goyal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, Mr. K.S. Dadwal and Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of jurisdiction to grant interim relief and expedite the final decision in cases involving Panchayat elections and the powers of the election authority.
Headnote:
Election - Panchayat Election - Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Section 210, Article 243-K of the Constitution of India - Section 54, 58, 59, 60 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 - The court discussed the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Section 210 and Article 243-K of the Constitution of India, along with Section 54, 58, 59, 60 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. The court analyzed the powers of the election authority in supervising and controlling elections, including the jurisdiction and power to issue directions for countermanding elections where fairness is questioned.
Fact of the Case:
The court dealt with a large number of writ petitions challenging the rejection and acceptance of nomination papers, alleged fraudulent withdrawal of candidates, and misconduct allegations related to Panchayat elections in Punjab. The court also addressed the countermanding and cancellation of elections in certain Panchayats by the Punjab State Election Commission and Returning Officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that serious debatable issues arose in the writ petitions and admitted all the petitions for consideration. It granted interim relief by staying fresh elections in cases where candidates had been declared elected and ordered fresh elections in other cases, subject to the decision of the writ petitions. The court also directed the matters to be heard by a Division Bench and proposed a timeline for final decision within three months.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection and acceptance of nomination papers, fraudulent withdrawal of candidates, misconduct allegations, countermanding and cancellation of elections, and the powers of the election authority in supervising and controlling elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the serious and important questions of law involved in the petitions, and it exercised its jurisdiction to grant interim relief and expedite the final decision.
Final Decision: The court admitted all the petitions, granted interim relief by staying fresh elections in certain cases, ordered fresh elections in others, and directed the matters to be heard by a Division Bench for final decision within three months.
Permod Kohli, J. - Pursuant to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243-B of the Constitution of India, process for constitution of Panchayats at village level was initiated by the State of Punjab by issuing following election schedule :
"(i) Nomination papers to be filled: 13.5.08 to 16.5.08
(ii) Scrutiny: 17.5.08
(iii) Last date for withdrawing the Nomination papers: 19.5.08
(iv) Date of Polling: 26.5.08"
2. General election in various Panchayats was to be held on 26.5.2008. Various notifications have been issued for purposes of delimitation and reservation, in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and Part IX of the Constitution of India. Nomination papers were to be filled between 13.5.2008 to 16.5.2008 followed with scrutiny on 17.5.2008. Last date for withdrawal of nomination papers was 19.5.2008 and the polling was held on 26.5.2008.
3. This Court has been flooded with a large number of writ petitions challenging rejection of nomination papers, acceptance of nomination papers, alleged fraudulent withdrawal of the candidates from the contest, tampering with the record and numerous other allegations of misconduct on the part of the Officers associated with the election. Some petitions relate to reservation and non-reservation of the wards. There are some petitions where serious allegations have been made against the candidates, Returning Officers and other poll related staff as also some of the Ministers of the State Government. In some cases, FIRs have also been registered. However, we refrain ourselves from going into the details of such allegations in these petitions at this stage.
4. The necessity to take up these matters during vacation has arisen in view of certain orders passed by the Punjab State Election Commission and even Returning Officers whereby elections in certain Panchayats have been either countermanded or cancelled. In some cases, the nomination papers were initially rejected, but subsequently shown to have been accepted. Similarly, in some cases, the nomination papers were initially accepted and later on shown to have been rejected. In CWP Nos. 9573, 9829, 9876, 10414, 10547, 10693, 10724, 10751 and 10815 of 2008, results of election were declared by the Returning Officers concerned. After the candidates were declared elected, on the basis of some complaints either to the Returning Officer or to the State Election Authority, the elections have been countermanded. In some cases, after enquiry and recording reasons whereas in other cases, without any reason. In other petitions, elections have been countermanded before the same could be finalized/declared on conclusion of the polling i.e. before the polling could be held.
5. The orders of countermanding of elections are under challenge in all these petitions. Primarily, there are two sets of cases firstly where the candidates have been declared elected and elections have been countermanded and secondly where the election has been countermanded before the process of election could be concluded and before the polling took place.
6. Lengthy arguments were advanced by both the sides.
7. The petitioners have contended that the State Election authority has no jurisdiction or power under law to countermand the election, except on the grounds specified under Section 60 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. To the contrary, the State has justified the countermanding of election taking refuge under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India and Section 210 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. All these provisions are noticed here under :
"The Constitution of India :-
Article 243-K : Elections to the Panchayats. - The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the
