IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (127

1. CR-7208-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-08.10.2025 GURMEL KAUR … Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS ... Respondents (127-2

2. CR-7209-2025 (O&M)

JASVIR KAUR … Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate along with Mr. Arun Jaidal, Advocate;

Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate and Ms. Shivaly Singla, Advocate for the petitioner (in both petitions).

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prabhdeep S. Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent No.2 (in both petitions).

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. This common order shall govern the disposal of the captioned revision petitions, all of which arise from the same legal and factual controversy. Considering that the parties are identical in each matter and that their respective counsel have expressed concurrence, the petitions are being adjudicated collectively in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the factual background for the purposes of this common order is taken from CR- 7208-2025, which provides a comprehensive account of the relevant facts. Considering that the issues arising in the connected matters are substantially similar, the facts recorded in CR-7208-2025 shall be treated as illustrative and representative for the adjudication of both the captioned revision petitions.

3. Both of the present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal commanded a recount of votes in the Panchayat elections for the offices of ‘Panch’ and ‘Sarpanch’ of village Chhahar, situated within the jurisdiction of Sunam, Udham Singh Wala, thereby necessitating adjudication of the petitions in light of the said direction.

3.1 The orders are challenged by the petitioner(s), who were declared successful in the elections, while the respondents unsuccessful candidates for the posts of ‘Panch’ and ‘Sarpanch,’ respectively had filed the election petitions.

4. The allegations set forth in the election petitions primarily assert that a number of votes were cast by fictitious or non-existent voters who were not present in the village. It is further contended that the respondents/petitioners were denied the opportunity to participate in the counting process and were forcibly removed from the counting centers under the pretext that the election had already been won. Several votes were rejected without being shown to the losing candidate or her counting agent, and neither the candidate nor her agent was permitted to remain in the counting hall. Additionally, it is alleged that the signatures of the candidates were obtained fraudulently, and the respondents/petitioners became aware of this only several days later.

5. The petitioners/respondents contested the election petitions by asserting that the elections had been conducted strictly in accordance with law, and that the counting of votes was carried out in compliance with the prescribed procedure. They further contended that no objection was raised by any of the respondents/petitioners either during the counting process or thereafter. Both parties were granted an opportunity to lead evidence. The respondents/petitioners examined themselves and also produced two additional witnesses, while the petitioners/respondents appeared as witnesses to rebut the evidence presented by the respondents/petitioners. Upon considering the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Election Tribunal passed the impugned order directing a recount of the votes.

6. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner/respondents have approached this Court, seeking appropriate relief and challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the directions contained therein.

7. At this stage, prior to the issuance of notice of