JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The petitioner herein, and, co-respondent No. 6 one Amarjit Singh contested elections to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Kulana, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. The outcome of the elections to the said post, was that, 939 votes were polled in favour of the petitioner, whereas, 908 votes were polled in favour of co-respondent No. 6. Co-respondent No. 6 filed an Election Petition under Section 76 of the PUNJAB STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ACT , 1994, before the Punjab State Election Commission. Through the said election petition, co-respondent No. 6 challenged the outcome of the elections, as were held for voting to the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Kulana, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. After completion of pleadings, and, upon subsequently thereto rather evidence becoming adduced by the contesting litigants, the Election Tribunal concerned, ordered for the re-counting of the votes, as were polled for elections to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kulana.

2. An affirmative order, as becomes carried in Annexure P-1, hence became drawn on the election petition, as became cast by respondent No. 6, before the Election Tribunal concerned. Annexure P-1 has been challenged, before this Court, by the aggrieved therefrom, one Jagdish Singh. The said Jagdish Singh was, prior to the making of the impugned order, hence declared to bag the highest votes, as, were cast in the apposite elections, as became conducted for electing the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned.

3. Before proceeding to draw any conclusion whether the verdict, challenged before this Court, is to be either validated or invalidated, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the pleadings, as became cast by one Amarjit Singh, in his election petition. The pleadings, as became cast by one Amarjit Singh in his election petition, are embodied in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8, paras whereof stand extracted hereinafter.

5. That at the time of counting of the votes the petitioner was made to sit at a distance from counting table and the counting staff made Jagdish Singh, respondent no. 1 to sit by their side and no information was given to the petitioner regarding the votes which were rejected, about the reasons for rejection of votes. Meaning thereby that some votes of the petitioner were rejected without any reason and some votes were tied with the bundle of votes of Jagdish Singh. The entire village is in the know of this fact.

6. That the petitioner requested the Presiding Officer and other staff that the votes may be recounted in the presence of petitioner. But respondents no. 2 to 5 did not hear to the petitioner and they refused the recounting without any justified reason. As such, the votes are liable to be recounted.

7. That out of total 2018 votes for Gram Panchayat Village Kulana, 1877 votes have been alleged to have been polled. Respondent no. 1 was acting in connivance with respondent no. 2 to 5. Respondent no. 1, in connivance with the election staff, impersonated other persons in place of deceased voters and polled such votes in his favour and at the time of polling the petitioner had raised objection that respondent no. 1 is polling fake votes in his favour. The election staff did not hear to the petitioner. The same has a material effect on the election process.

8. That respondent no. 1 was in connivance with respondents no. 4 and 5. Respondents no. 2 to 4 committed irregularities and omissions which had a material effect upon the election result and the same has been the reason for the defeat of the petitioner. As such, the election of respondent no. 1 for the post of Sarpanch is li