JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein, prays for the quashing of the judgment dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure P10), as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panipat-Election Tribunal under the Haryana Panchyati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter for short called as the Act of 1994) wherebys, the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ahar, District Panipat has been set aside by accepting the election petition filed by respondent No.1, besides seek the quashing of the judgement dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-12), as passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Panipat-Appellate Authority under the Act of 1994, wherebys, the judgment rendered by the election Tribunal has been upheld. Resultantly, fresh elections were directed to be conducted to the seat of Gram Panchayat Ahar, District Panipat.

Factual Background.

2. The petitioner contested the election for the Office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ahar, District Panipat alongwith seven other candidates. After counting of votes the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 34 votes, having polled 1339 votes, whereas, his nearest rival i.e. respondent No. 1, thus polled 1305 votes. The petitioner was on 02.11.2022, thus issued the certificate qua having been elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ahar, rather by the Election Officer/Returning Officer.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 176 of the Act of 1994, for setting aside the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ahar, District Panipat. The said petition became allowed by the Election Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.10.2023. The operative part of the said judgment is extracted hereinafter.

45. In view of the discussion of the aforesaid issues, the present election petition stands partly allowed with cost in favour of the petitioner to the effect that election of respondent no. 1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ahar vide election result dated 2.11.2022 is ordered to be set aside being illegal, null and void. Respondent no 9/Collector is directed to conduct fresh elections as per the provisions of the Act. Respondents no. 8 & 9 are also restrained from giving charge to respondent no. 1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ahar and also restrained from handing over record to respondent no. 1 and from restraining respondent no. 1 to act as Sarpanch of the village. Memo of cost be prepared. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance..."

4. The said verdict became challenged by the aggrieved- petitioner herein before the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1994. The Appellate Authority finding no infirmity in the judgment dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Election Tribunal concerned vide order dated 28.05.2024 thus therebys upheld the same. The operative part of the verdict made by the Appellate Authority is extracted hereinafter.

19. In this regard, the most important and material witness is none other than the witness of respondents i.e. RW2 Mahesh Kumar Saini, who was the Returning Officer during the election in question. His cross examination has supported the case of the petitioner and has rightly been relied upon by learned trial court, while basing its findings on the deposition of this witness. During cross-examination, this witness has categorically admitted that sometime there is difference between the votes of EVM and the manual register maintained and further fact regarding the double votes having been polled while admitting that in Ex.P5 at page no. 81 at S.No.29, vote no.117/2 was polled and the same vote has been polled at page no.95 at S.No.277. He further admitted that at page no.83 at S.No.80, vote no.92/3 was polled which was again polled at page no.89 at S.No.157. His further admission is that at page no.89 at S.No.83, vote no.93/3 was polled which was again polled at page no.117 at S.No.622. Similarly, at page no.93, at S.No.248 and at page no.111, vote no.266/4 was twice polled. He