213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3243-2025 Date of decision: 14.01.2026 Bhagwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate and Ms. Bhoomika, Advocate and Mr. Kuljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate and Ms. Srishti S. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1 and for staying the further proceedings of the case i.e., File No.08/Election dated 21.11.2024 titled as “Darshan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer and another” pending before respondent No.1.

2. On 28.05.2025, this Court was pleased to issue notice of motion and granted stay of further proceedings. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Inter alia, contends that in the present case, the election petition has been presented through counsel and for the said purpose has referred to the zimni order dated 21.11.2024. It is submitted that even on 12.12.2024, respondent No.3/election petitioner had not appeared in person and the limitation for filing the election petition had elapsed on 29.11.2024 as the election had taken place on 15.10.2024. It is further submitted that thus, in the said circumstances, there was violation of Section 76(1) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and the petition was required to be rejected summarily under Section 80(1) of the said Act. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Manjit Kaur Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, and others”, reported as 2010(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 784. It is stated that the said objection was specifically raised but in the impugned order, no valid reason has been given for rejecting of the same and the application filed by the petitioner was rejected without giving any reasons. It is further stated that even the verification in the present case is not in consonance with Order 6 Rule 15 CPC and a perusal of the judgment in the case of Manjit Kaur (supra) would show that as per the laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was incumbent upon the election petitioner to have verified the election petition strictly in terms of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. It is submitted that in the present case, although election petition has been stated to have been presented on 21.11.2024 but the election petition itself is dated 25.11.2024 and even the affidavit in support of the said election petition is dated 25.11.2024 and are subsequent to the date of presentation. It is argued that even the security fee was paid on 27.11.2024 and thus, the date on which the election petition was presented and notice was issued i.e. 21.11.2024, the election petition cannot be stated to be complete in all respects.

Notice of motion for 21.07.2025.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and waives service.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve respondent No.3 through dasti process as well as the counsel representing him before the Election Tribunal.

Further proceedings before the Election Tribunal shall remain stayed.

To be taken up after the urgent matters.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the said contentions were duly raised and most of the said contentions were noticed in the impugned order but none of the contentions have been dealt by the Election Tribunal, Amloh. It is submitted that at any rate, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Election Tribunal, Amloh, be directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) after taking into consideration the