FAO No.1460 of 2009 -1 -
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1460 of 2009
Date of decision : 7.5.2009
Amritdeed Kaur
..Appellant.
Vs.
Sukhdev Singh and others
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The order passed by Election Tribunal, Tarn Taran dated
16.2.2009 dismissing the election petition filed by appellant has been
challenged in this appeal.
In brief, the facts of the case are that election for the Gram
Panchayat of village Dode, Block Bikhiwind, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran
was held on 26.5.2008. There were 7 posts of Panches, out of which two
posts were for General category, one for General Women, three for SC Men
and one for SC Women. The appellant got 275 votes whereas Dalbir Kaur
wife of Dilbag Singh (respondent No.9) secured 318 votes and was declared
elected. The appellant filed Election Petition unde Section 76 read with
Sections 89 and 108 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994
challenging the election of Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.1) who has been
elected as a Panch in the general category, on the ground that she had
FAO No.1460 of 2009 -2 –
contested from General Category and had secured more votes than him. The
learned Election Tribunal found that the appellant and respondent No.9
had filed nomination papers, which are on record as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, in the
category of General Women out of which one post was to be filled up. Since
the appellant had secured less votes than respondent No.9, therefore, the
respondent No.9 has been declared elected in the category of General
Women. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Election Tribunal, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal in which vide order dated
30.3.2009 record of the Election Tribunal was summoned.
Sh.H.S.Baath, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently
argued that even if in the nomination paper Ex.P1, the appellant has
mentioned her category as Woman, she is to be considered in the General
Category because word `Woman’ is not mentioned in the relevant column
provided in the nomination paper (Ex.P1).
I have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for
the appellant and have perused the record.
Nomination paper Ex.P1 pertains to the appellant whereas
nomination paper Ex.P2 pertains to respondent No.9. In both the nomination
papers Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 the word `Woman’ category is mentioned showing
the intention of the appellant as well as respondent No.9 that they were
contesting the election in the category of General Woman and not in the
General category as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Thus, I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel
for the appellant in this regard. It appears that after loosing her election in
the General category (Women) at the hands of respondent No.9, the
appellant is trying to shift to General Category through the process of
FAO No.1460 of 2009 -3 –
election petition where the candidates who have been declared elected have
secured less votes than her. I have also asked a pertinent question to the
counsel for the appellant that who else have contested in the category of
General Woman to which counsel for the appellant submits that except for
the two candidates, namely, the appellant and respondent No.9, there is no
other candidate who has contested the election in the General category of
Woman. Thus, I find it to be unbelievable that appellant and respondent
No.9 have contested the election in General Category and there was no
candidate in the village who have contested the election in the category of
General (Woman).
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I do not find any
merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine,
however, without any order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
7.5.2009 JUDGE
Meenu