Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GURMAIL KAUR versus PARAMJEET KAUR & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gurmail Kaur v. Paramjeet Kaur & Anr - FAO-5178-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 770 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.5178 of 2004

Date of Decision: 20.02.2006

Parties Name

Gurmail Kaur

Appellant

versus

Paramjeet Kaur and another

Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Shri Mannu Devgan, Advocate for the appellant Shri A.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent JUDGMENT

Civil Misc. No.22180-CII of 2004

In view of averments made in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 36 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.

FAO No.5178 of 2004

Vide order, under challenge, election petition, filed by the appellant was dismissed. In an election to the post of village Sarpanch, on 29.6.2003, the appellant was declared defeated. She laid challenge to that election, by stating that the respondent No.1 was only 20 years of age, whereas as per provisions of law, a voter less then 21 years of age, was not eligible to contest the election. Further it was stated that despite getting the higher votes, the appellant was declared defeated, in an arbitrary manner, by the Presiding Officer.

Perusal of records reveal that to say that the respondent was 20 years of age, except bringing on record voters list, wherein it was so mentioned, no other evidence has been brought on record.

As against this, respondent has placed on record his School Leaving Certificate and also led oral evidence to show that she was more than 21 years of age, at the time when elections were held. Regarding wrong counting of votes also, there existed no evidence on record. It is very surprising that if the appellant had won the election and was allegedly declared defeated, why she had not moved any application, immediately thereafter, to the higher authorities. It is apparent from the records that the appellant had signed the result sheet without any objection. No case is made out for interference.

Dismissed.

February 20, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk 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.