Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 21462 of 2014 (O&M)
Ramesh Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 24/03/2015}
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate/amicus curiae for respondent No.4.
Headnote:Election of Gram Panchayat--The returning candidate cannot have any cause of action to approach the Election Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
Election of Gram Panchayat--The election of Panchayat/Municipality can be challenged directly before the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
(A) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.176--Election of Gram Panchayat--The returning candidate cannot have any cause of action to approach the Election Tribunal for redressal of his grievance--It is only the defeated candidate who can file an election petition before the Tribunal, challenging the election of the returned candidate.(Para 10)
(B) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.176--Election of Gram Panchayat--The candidate can approach the Election Tribunal only under two circumstances : (i) if the returned candidate had committed corrupt practice coming within the meaning of Sub-Section (5); or if there were some irregularities or illegalities during the course of counting.(Para 10)
(C) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.176--Election of Gram Panchayat--The election of Panchayat/Municipality can be challenged directly before the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.(Para 10)
(D) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.176--Election of Gram Panchayat--Wrong declaration of winning candidate--Petitioner won the election of Gram Panchayat, but in notice for taking oath the father’s name of petitioner was wrongly mentioned as the name of petitioner was similar to another candidate and his father’s name was wrongly mentioned--Held; Proper remedy was to approach High Court under its writ jurisdiction--Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to issue corrigendum in notification and Election Tribunal cannot redress grievance of winning candidate--Election Petition allowed--Petitioner declared as winning candidate.
Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - By way of the instant writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned communication dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) and the judgment dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, has been dismissed.
2. It is contended that the petitioner secured 103 votes, whereas, respondent No.4 secured 93 votes in the elections of Gram Panchayat, held on 06.07.2010. The oath ceremony was to be held on 25.07.2010 and a letter was received by the petitioner for taking oath. However, in the said letter, the name of the father of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Dhara Ram instead of Banwari Lal. Both the candidates share common name i.e. Ramesh Kumar, whereas, their father’s name were different, due to which the mistake has occurred. A complaint was also made by the petitioner before the Presiding Officer of Ward No.8, Gram Panchayat, Hassangarh, upon which, he made a statement in writing that it was due to his sheer mistake that Ramesh son of Dhara Ram, who secured 93 votes, was declared elected. The petitioner had approached the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievance but in vain.
3. The learned State counsel as well as the learned amicus curaie admit the factual position and states inadvertently the father name of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned in the communication of the oath taking ceremony. The petitioner was the winning candidate from Ward No.8. In fact, the respondent No.2 had written to respondent No.1, vide letter No. 3694 dated 21.12.2010, to the effect that the name of the petitioner be notified in place of respondent No.4 for the post of Panch but the State Election Commission, vide memo dated 10.10.2011, informed that if the mistake is committed by the Returning Officer, no corrigendum can be issued and the affected party may be advised to take appropriate legal remedy.
4. The learned amicus curiae cites Prithvi Raj Vs. State Election Commission, Punjab and others, [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2580 (FB)] : 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 817, Lal Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 1998(3) RCR (Civil) 255.
5. Heard.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioner, namely Ramesh Kumar son of Banwari Lal was polled 103 votes, where respondent No. 4 namely Ramesh Kumar son of Dhara Ram was polled only 93 votes and as such it was the petitioner who ought to have been administered oath as a Panch. On 25.07.2010, the petitioner received a letter for taking oath to the office, but found that in said letter, his father’s name was wrongly mentioned as Dhara Ram. Since, there was a mistake in the father’s name, none took oath for the said post. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation/complaint to BDPO that although he is the duly elected Panch of the village, respondent No. 4, whose name is same to the name of petitioner has been wrongly declared as Panch and therefore this clerical mistake be corrected. On the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted, in which the presiding officer for the election from ward No. 8 made a statement in writing to the effect that due to his mistake name of Ramesh Kumar son of Dhara Ram was wrongly declared as elected instead of petitioner and he may be pardoned. Subsequently, petitioner submitted an application under the RTI Act as to what action was being taken on his representation. Upon this application, he received information vide letter dated 27.12.2011, that State election Commission, Haryana has no power to issue corrigendum for making change in the result sheet prepared by the concerned returning officer. On this, the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak sought advice from the Advocate General, Haryana who, in turn advised that in case of any mistake by returning officer, no corrigendum can be issued and the effected party has to take appropriate legal remedy. (Annexu
