IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 12543 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 09.09.2008
Kashmir Singh and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioners, who are 4 out of 7 Panches of Gram Panchayat,
village Kaile Kalan, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No.6 as
Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, being illegal, null and void, who
was elected as Sarpanch in the meeting held on 16.7.2008.
It is the case of the petitioners that though the meeting dated
16.7.2008 was attended by 6 Panches, but one Panch, namely Sukhwinder
Singh – petitioner No.3, was not permitted to attend the said meeting. In
CWP No. 12543 of 2008 -2-
that meeting, respondent No.6 was illegally declared elected as Sarpanch by
majority of the Panches. It is the further case of the petitioners that
petitioner No.4, who attended the meeting, did not cast vote in favour of
respondent No.6, but her signatures were forged.
Written statement on behalf of respondent No.6 has been filed
in court today. The same is taken on record and its copy has been handed
over to counsel for the petitioners.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to
4, a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners have the
alternative remedy to challenge the election of respondent No.6 as
Sarpanch, by filing election petition.
We have heard counsel for the parties.
In view of the preliminary objection raised by respondents No.2
to 4 and the fact that the disputed questions of facts are involved, counsel
for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw
this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of election petition. Counsel for
the petitioners further submits that since the instant petition was filed after 5
days of the election and now the period of limitation for filing election
petition has expired, therefore, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others,
(1996) 6 SCC 199, the petitioners 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
CWP No. 12543 of 2008 -3-
Tribunal.
Counsel for respondent No.6 states that he has no objection if
the petitioners are permitted to file election petition.
After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, 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, 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
September 09, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH )
manoj/ndj JUDGE