IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Gurmit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar And Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2016
Decided On : 10-08-2018
Election Tribunal - Non-maintainability of Election Petition - Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, Sections 76, 77, 78, 80(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting preliminary objections on non-maintainability of the election petition due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act, and therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner were valid.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, and the rejection of preliminary objections by the Election Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election petition must adhere to the mandatory requirements of Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act, and failure to do so would render the petition non-maintainable.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the Election Tribunal was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by Election Tribunal (DC), Mansa vide which the preliminary arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect of non-maintainability of the petition were rejected and the case was kept for evidence of the petitioner.
2. Election for the post of Municipal Councillor of Ward No.6 of Nagar Panchayat, Joga, District Mansa took place on 25.02.2015. Petitioner was successful in the said election. Respondents No.1 and 3 remained unsuccessful. Respondent No.1 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal-cumDeputy Commissioner, Mansa. Petitioner and other respondents filed replies to the election petition by taking preliminary objections with regard to non-maintainability of the election petition being violative of mandatory provisions of Sections 76, 77, 78 and 80(1) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.
3. The objections raised by the petitioner in respect of non-maintainability of election petition were in respect of noncompliance of conditions of Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Each and every page of the election petition and the documents attached thereto were required to be signed by the election petitioner. The copy of the petition supplied to the returned candidates was not endorsed with a certificate of 'attested to be true copy' on each and every page as required under Section 78(2) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. All the Electoral Officials were not impleaded as party to the election petition. Lastly, respondents No.3 and 4 were impleaded as party by showing Presiding Officer as Returning Officer and Returning Officer as Presiding Officer. On the basis of aforesaid mandatory requirement, objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that the election petition was not maintainable for want of mandatory requirement of law. The objections have been rejected by the Election Tribunal solely on the ground that the objections shall be decided after collecting evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as per requirement of Section 76 of the Act, every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the petition. The requirement of Section 76(2) of the Act is mandatory. Similarly, as per Section 77(2) of the Act, the schedule of Annexures to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition is required to be filed. Under Section 80 of the Act, it is the duty of the Election Tribunal to dismiss the election petition which has been filed without mandatory compliance of Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. The verification done by the election petitioner was not in consonance with Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. As per requirement of law, every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents. Every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures with an endorsement of true copy of the petition. Petitioner shall join all the necessary parties to the election petition as respondents against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made. The election petition shall be signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner as laid down in Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. Any schedule of Annexure attached to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as is required for presentation of the election petition. Section 80 of the Act casts an obligation on the Court to dismiss the election petition which does not comply with mandatory requirement of Sections 76, 77 and 103 of the Act.
5. Learned counsel relied upon CR No.7310 of 2013 decided on 20.03.2015 titled Gurmail Kaur, Sarpanch, Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Div
G.V. Sreerama Reddy and another Vs. Returning Officer and others
Gurlal Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others
H.D. Revanna Vs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others
Harsh Kumar Vs. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat
Kamaljit Kaur Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others
Madan Mohan Vs. Arun Shourie and others
Manjit Kaur Vs. Bhupinder Kaur etc.
Mukhtiar Singh Vs. Chief Election Officer and Dharam Dev Solanki, MLA
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.