SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Andana-cum-sdm, Moonak & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 2505 of 2020
Decided On : 08-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, Ms. Shikha Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Kuljinder Singh Sra, Advocate, for the Respondent

The principle of waiver cannot apply in election matters as election law is peremptory in nature and cannot be waived by any action of a party.

Headnote:

Election Petition - Maintainability - Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 - Rule 33 of the Punjab State Election Rules, 1994 - Asha Rani vs. Barjinder Kaur and others, 2010(66) R.C.R.(Civil) 129, Gurnam Bindra Singh vs. Kulwant Singh and others, 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 367, Preet Mohinder Singh vs. Kirpal Singh, 2001(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 647, Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwaal, 2009(4) RC.R (Civil) 585, Baldev Singh vs. Shinder Pal Singh and another, 2006(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 891, Mandher Singh vs. Mangal Singh, 2000(3) PLR 835, Roop Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2006(6) RC.R. (Civil) 964-DB, Gurtej Singh vs. Darbara Singh, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 525, Gurlal Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others, 2010(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 474, Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744, Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983(1)

Fact of the Case:

The election petition was filed for setting aside the order directing recount of votes for the election to the post of Sarpanch of Village Bishanpura Khokhar. The petitioner argued that the election petition was not maintainable due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and other procedural irregularities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election petition was not maintainable due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and should have been dismissed outright. The order of recount was quashed as it was beyond the relief sought by the election petitioner and could not have been granted.

Issues: Maintainability of the election petition, applicability of the principle of waiver, and the validity of the order of recount.

Ratio Decidendi: The election petition was not maintainable in the absence of impleadment of the Returning Officer. The principle of waiver cannot apply in election matters as election law is peremptory in nature and cannot be waived by any action of a party.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order directing recount was quashed.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral). - This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Election Tribunal, Block Andana at Moonak has directed recount of votes.

2. Election to the post of Sarpanch of Village Bishanpura Khokhar, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur was held on 30.12.2018 in which the petitioner was declared elected. His election was challenged by respondent No.2 vide election petition dated 30.01.2019. Although, the prayer made of setting aside the election has been declined, relief of recounting has been granted. The margin between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was of 08 votes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that relief of recounting could not have been granted in the absence of a prayer therefor. The issue regarding the election being void has been decided in favour of the petitioner and thus, the Election Tribunal has gone beyond the prayer made in the election petition. The next argument raised is that the election petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties. It has been submitted that in the election petition allegations of corrupt practices have been made against the Returning Officer but the said Returning Officer has not been made a party. Reliance has been placed upon 'Asha Rani vs. Barjinder Kaur and others, 2010(66) R.C.R.(Civil) 129'. Further, it has been argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground that the Election Tribunal could not delegate its power. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Election Tribunal has directed the Tehsildar Moonak to conduct the recount and this is impermissible in law. With reference to this proposition, reliance has been placed upon 'Gurnam Bindra Singh vs. Kulwant Singh and others, 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 367'. The next submission is that the material particulars in support of the plea for recounting have not been pleaded and on account of this reason also the election petition deserves to be dismissed. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon 'Preet Mohinder Singh vs. Kirpal Singh, 2001(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 647' as well as Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwaal, 2009(4) RC.R (Civil) 585'. The final argument isthat the election petition has not been properly verified. The verification should have been strictly in accordance with the Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC and the same having not been done, the election petition was liable to be fail. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon 'Baldev Singh vs. Shinder Pal Singh and another, 2006(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 891'.

4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that a perusal of the statement of Tarun Kumar referred to in the impugned order shows that at the time of counting gun shots were fired outside the booth and the present police officers commanded for faster counting of votes. Thus, Annexure P-9 was wrongly filled. This establishes that their may have been an error in counting also and the margin being very small, the order of recount was just and fair. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon 'Mandher Singh vs. Mangal Singh, 2000(3) PLR 835'. Regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, it has been argued that no objection in that regard was taken in the written statement filed before the Election Tribunal and thus, the petitioner would be deemed to have waived his right to raise this objection. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 'Roop Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2006(6) RC.R. (Civil) 964-DB' to argue that even though there is no specific provision regarding recounting in the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), relief of recounting can still be granted. Finally, it has been submitted that Rule 33 of the Punjab State Election Rules, 1994 providing for endorsement of the Returning Officer on the cancelled votes has not been complied with. The rule is m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top