Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1031 (PNJ)

Lekh Ram Sarpanch v. State of Haryana

2001-09-18

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2001
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.2000 by which election to the office of Panches and Sarpanch of village Madho Sinighana, District Sirsa, was ordered to be held in abeyance. The petitioner has stated that he was a candidate for the post of Sarpanch and though nine nominations were accepted, eight had withdrawn and the petitioner was the only person left and was entitled to be declared elected under Rule 37 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 24.3.2000 fixing new schedule for the election. 2. The petitioner has contended that respondent No. 4 appears to have made a complaint that his nomination has been wrongly rejected on which ex-parte enquiry appears to have been held without associating him and impugned order had been passed as a result of the said enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry held was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order was arbitrary. In para 5 of the petition, it is stated that respondent No. 4 was nephew of the Chief Minister and it is for this reason that the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 i.e. State Election Commission has stated that respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the Returning Officer and once it is brought to the notice of the Election Commission that Returning Officer was acting illegally, in the interest of fair election, he can issue necessary directions suspending/cancelling the original schedule and issue a fresh schedule to enable all eligible candidates to contest the election. Written statement has been filed denying the allegations of mala fide. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Shyam Sakhi and others v. The State Election Commission and others, I.C.W.P. 32421 of 2000 decided on 7.8.2000 wherein the order of the Commission was set aside, after petitioner in that writ petition had already been declared elected. It was held that after declaration of result of the election, the Commission had no role to play. Other observations made in the said judgment are also in that context. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said judgment does not apply to the present case where result of the petitioner has not been declared. 4. It was held that after declaration of result of the election, the Commission had no role to play. Other observations made in the said judgment are also in that context. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said judgment does not apply to the present case where result of the petitioner has not been declared. 4. Under Article 243K of the Constitution read with Section 212 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the State Election Commission is constituted for superintendence, direction and control of the elections. 5. The State Election Commission has powers to pass any order to ensure a fair election and has power to suspend the election where Returning Officers illegally rejects nominations. Applicability of principles of natural justice depends upon the situation in which the authority exercising the power is placed. Principles of natural justice, in such a situation, may not require hearing of the affected parties, though the authority is required to act fairly, and after application of mind. It is patent that the Returning Officer had acted illegally and it could not be shown by the petitioner that action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nominations was valid. The rejection of the nominations does not appear to be justified and there is no reason to assail the view taken by the Commission in this regard, though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no irregularity in rejection of the nominations. 6. Though in the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order after it has been explained that the Commission had reasons for suspending the election, I hold that legally at least some reasons which are the basis of the order, should be indicated in the order itself. 7. Mr. Gill also contended that the aggrieved party had remedy of challenging the election and in view of that remedy being available the State Election Commission could not and ought not to interfere after the election process had started. No doubt, this may be a relevant consideration but this could be no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Commission. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.