High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Mahinder Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Lu - FAO-3032-2005  RD-P&H 7110 (13 September 2006)
FAO No. 3032 of 2005
Date of decision : 21.9.2006
Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Ludhiana and others
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal Present: Sh. Y.M. Bhagirath, Advocate
for the appellant.
Sh. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
The elections for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Seelon Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, had taken place on 29.6.2003. Mahinder Singh-appellant had contested the elections against Darshan Singh-respondent No.2. Harjang Singh-respondent No.3 was also in the race. The votes were secured by the candidates as under :-
Mahinder Singh-appellant 229
Darshan Singh-respondent No.2 234
Harjang Singh-respondent No.3 207
Cancelled votes 30
Accordingly, Darshan Singh-respondent No.2 was declared elected.
The appellant filed the election petition challenging the election of Darshan Singh-respondent No.2 as Sarpanch of village Seelon Kalan. It was pleaded that provisions of Section 66 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act and Rule 33 of the Punjab State Election Commission Rules, were not complied with. The appellant could not see the ballot papers nor could he watch if the votes were properly cancelled. Separate packets of ballot papers were not made. The election record was not sealed. The prayer for recounting was made by the appellant but it was not accepted.
Therefore, it was prayed that the election of Darshan Singh- respondent No.2 as Sarpanch be declared illegal.
The respondents filed the written reply and contested the case.
Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. The learned Election Tribunal held that neither the Presiding Officer was examined by the appellant as a witness in the election petition, nor any documentary proof was produced about the irregularities alleged.
The Election Tribunal found the election petition to be without any merit and dismissed the same vide order dated 14.3.2005.
Hence, the appeal.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the result was not declared at the place of voting. It was declared at some other place.
This submission has been considered. There was no evidence to that effect. Even the oral evidence led by the appellant by examining two witnesses is contradictory. For example, Mahinder Singh-appellant deposed that Presiding Officer did not declare the result on the spot and he also did not seal the record after counting.
He was also not given a copy of the result. However, Darshan Singh - PW-1 has deposed that he was present at the time of voting all the time. Therefore, the story that improper seating arrangement was made, is falsified. Karnail Singh- PW-2 also admitted in his statement that he came to know about the result of the election within the polling booth and the election staff told all the candidates about the votes they got. Charanjit Singh PW-3 deposed that the Presiding Officer informed about counting of the votes while coming out of the polling booth. Therefore, all the three witnesses of the appellant made contrary statements.
Moreover, the learned Election Tribunal has sifted the evidence minutely and had reached the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities levelled by the appellant have not been proved.
I find no ground to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the learned Election Tribunal.
There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
( S.N.Aggarwal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.