Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DARSHAN SINGH versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM DEPUTY

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Darshan Singh v. Election Tribunal cum Deputy - FAO-707-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1633 (10 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

F.A.O. No.707 of 2006

Date of Decision:28.2.2006

Darshan Singh

Vs.

Election Tribunal cum Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar and others

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri S.K.Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

Shri B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, counsel appearing for the appellant, states that the Tribunal below has not adopted the procedure, as envisaged under the provisions of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, rather in a very arbitrary manner, by placing reliance upon contradictory demarcation reports, it was said that the appellant was in possession of some land of the Gram Panchayat. By referring to documents Annexures A.1 to A.4, counsel contends that the finding given, is contrary to the revenue record. It has further been stated that no issue was framed, parties were not allowed to lead evidence and even replication of the respondent was not taken on record.

When confronted with the situation referred to above, the counsel for the respondent has failed to justify and defend the order passed by the Tribunal below. It is apparent from the record that procedure as F.A.O. No.707 of 2006 [2]

envisaged under the provisions of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and rules framed thereunder, was not adopted by the Tribunal, while deciding the election petition. In election petitions, very valuable rights of the parties are involved, as such the Tribunal is supposed to adopt the procedure as provided, under the law, in its entirety. It is apparent from the document placed on record, that as per revenue record, the appellant is not in possession of the property, belonging to the Gram Panchayat, despite that, finding to the contrary has been given.

This Court feels that the Tribunal below has also failed to appreciate evidence on record in a proper manner. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide afresh, after giving proper opportunity to both the parties, as per law. An attempt, to decide the matter in an expeditious manner, shall highly be appreciated. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal below on 20.3.2006. No order as to cost.

February 28, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.