IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 13507 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 20.11.2008
Paramjit Singh and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. G.S. Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
Mr. Roshan Lal Batta, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate,
for respondents No.6 to 10.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
The petitioners, who are 6 out of 11 Panches of Gram
Panchayat, Village Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, have filed this
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside
the proceedings of the meeting held on 22.7.2008, in which respondent No.6
CWP No. 13507 of 2008 -2-
was elected as Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat.
It is the case of the petitioners that though in spite of the order
dated 22.7.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No. 12625 of 2008, which
was duly communicated to the Presiding Officer on mobile phone, they
were not permitted to attend the proceedings of the said meeting and the
remaining 5 Panches, who were present in the meeting, have elected
respondent No.6 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This fact has been
controverted by the respondents in their written statements. It is the case of
the respondents that actually, at the time of the meeting held on 22.7.2008,
the petitioners were present in this Court and they did not attend the
meeting. The respondents have also raised preliminary objection that in
view of the decision of this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and
others (CWP No. 13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), the
petitioners have the remedy of election petition to challenge the election of
respondent No.6.
In view of the aforesaid facts, after arguing for some time,
counsel for the petitioners states that keeping in view the disputed questions
of facts involved in this writ petition and in view of decision of this Court in
Baljit Singh’s case (supra), the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw
this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of election petition. However,
counsel for the petitioners further submits that since immediately after the
election of the office of Sarpanch on 22.7.2008, the petitioners had filed this
petition on 29.7.2008 i.e. within the limitation prescribed for filing election
CWP No. 13507 of 2008 -3-
petition, therefore, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, (1996) 6 SCC
199, they may be permitted to file election petition within three weeks from
today and in case election petition is filed within three weeks, the same may
be directed to be heard on merits by the Election Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection, if the
aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted.
In view of above, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this
writ petition with liberty to file an election petition under Section 76 read
with Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 within
a period of three weeks from today, challenging the election of respondent
No.6.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
If the election petition is filed by the petitioners within a period
of three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to entertain and
decide the same on merits, expeditiously.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
November 20, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH )
ndj JUDGE