Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 595 (PNJ)

Surjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2004-05-20

AJAY K.MITTAL, SWATANTER KUMAR

body2004
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The seat of Sarpanch of village Mukkam, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar was reserved for Schedule Caste (Woman). The petitioner being Schedule Caste, was eligible for the same and she filed her nomination papers alongwith requisite certificate for the post of Sarpanch. The elections were declared to the Panchayat of the said village by the State of Punjab in June, 2003. Except the petitioner nobody filed the nomination papers for the post for Sarpanch. There was certain discrepancy in the name mentioned in the caste certificate and the voter list which was filed by the petitioner. Consequently, her nomination papers were also rejected by the Election Officer and no election to the post of Sarpanch of that village could take place. Declaration was made by the State for holding the elections in December, 2003. The petitioner again submitted her nomination papers alongwith requisite certificate. According to the petitioner they were found to be in order. On 21.12.2003 the election schedule had been published and in terms thereof result of the election was to be declared on 21.12.2003. The petitioner was the only candidate who remained in the process of ejection after scrutiny of nomination papers. On 6.2.2004 the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar visited the village and further process was installed in view of the representations received from various persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, in respect of the certificate furnished by the petitioner. Though the respondents found the certificate to be proper and valid still she was not declared elected, instead the respondents declared that fresh election should be held in December, 2003. Fresh election was ordered to be held on 22.2.2004 for which the petitioner again filed her nomination papers alongwith other candidates, namely, Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Jagir Kaur, both belonging to Scheduled Castes. According to the petitioner both these candidates belong to Christian community and were not eligible to contest against the said seat. The grievance of the petitioner is that they obtained false certificate and contested the election. The petitioner made representations including on 11.2.2004, Annexure P/3, raising a grievance with regard to the eligibility of these persons and also to the effect that she belonged to Majhabi Sikh community which is Scheduled Caste category. The grievance of the petitioner is that they obtained false certificate and contested the election. The petitioner made representations including on 11.2.2004, Annexure P/3, raising a grievance with regard to the eligibility of these persons and also to the effect that she belonged to Majhabi Sikh community which is Scheduled Caste category. According to the petitioner she should have been declared elected in pursuance to the election programmer published on 21.12.2003, Annexure P/1 to the writ petition and she should be declared to be elected for the post for Sarpanch under the provisions of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. 2. Upon notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6,wherein it is stated that both the private respondents were fully eligible and in tact, respondent No. 7 had withdrawn her nomination and the election was held between the petitioner and respondent No. 6. Respondents No. 6 has since been elected as Sarpanch, the very maintainability of this petition is questioned on the ground of an alternative remedy under the provisions of statute by filing an election petition. In regard to the other reliefs claimed in the writ petition, it is stated that the election of the village was cancelled by order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.12.2003. The State Election Commission is stated to have looked into the matter and made out a notification dated 9.2.2004 where it was found that the name of the petitioner was corrected in back date without payment of necessary fee at the relevant time and after the last date of filing of nomination papers and as such the election process was stated to have been vitiated and resultantly fresh election programme was furnished by the Election Commission vide the same letter in which the petitioner had filed nomination, contested the election and lost the same. 3. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to declare the result of the election held on 21.12.2003 and declare her as Sarpanch of the village and the elections held in February, 2004 be declared to be null and void. 4. 4 and 5 to declare the result of the election held on 21.12.2003 and declare her as Sarpanch of the village and the elections held in February, 2004 be declared to be null and void. 4. At the very out set we may notice that the petitioner has not challenged in this writ petition the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner on 20.12.2003 as well as the order passed by the Election Commission dt. 9.2.2004. The order passed by the Election Commission dated 9.2.2004 is a reasoned order which contains all the pleas which have been taken by the respondents in their respective replies. An opportunity was granted. The Commission has formed an opinion that the election process stands vitiated. The relevant part of the finding is as under:- "After going through the inquiry findings, Commission has concluded that election in its present form cannot be allowed to take place as the election process has got vitiated and fair election cannot take place if the nomination papers already filed by Surjit Kaur are allowed. This election for these reasons is, therefore, cancelled. Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 35, of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 , the State Election Commission hereby appoints the following dates for the conduct of election with respect to the election of the above said Gram Panchayat: a) 12th February, 2004 (Thursday) as the last date for making nominations; b) 13th February, 2004 (Friday) as the date for the Scrutiny of nominations; c) 14th February, 2004 ( Saturday) as the last date for withdrawal of candidature; d) 22nd February, 2004 (Sunday) as the date on which a poll shall, if necessary, be taken; and @TAB = e)25th February, 2004 (Wednesday) as the date by which the election shall be completed. Note: 14th January, 2004, is not a public holiday under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as such the withdrawal of candidates will take place on that date. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 57 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 the Election Commission hereby fixes the polling hours from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. during which the poll shall take place on 22nd February, 2004 to conduct the election of the above said Gram Panchayat." 5. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 57 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 the Election Commission hereby fixes the polling hours from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. during which the poll shall take place on 22nd February, 2004 to conduct the election of the above said Gram Panchayat." 5. There being no challenge to the election programme published in the said letter as well as to the substantive part of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, this writ petition is defective in its content and prayer. Furthermore, the petitioner participated in the election process, submitted the nomination papers and now when she has lost the election attempted to rely upon the earlier elections which stood cancelled. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.12.2003 was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. She never challenged the same till date and filed the present writ petition after declaration of the results of the elections held in February, 2004. If for any reason the petitioner is desirous of challenging the election of respondent No. 6 to the post of Sarpanch she has an appropriate remedy available under the Act itself to file an election petition. Instead of filing an election petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition which, in our view, is not even maintainable on that score. 6. During the course of hearing, record was also produced before us which we have perused. 7. Another factor which we must notice that the petitioner was fully aware as back as in June, 2003, when she filed her nomination papers for the first time and which were rejected for wrong description of the name in the voter list and Scheduled Caste Certificate, but she took no steps to get the same corrected. She relied on the same certificate even for the subsequent period and then got it corrected after the last date of nomination was over. This conduct of the petitioner, seen in the light of the facts that she has opted not to challenge the orders passed by the competent authorities from time to time, we wee no reasons to grant any relief to the petitioner in this petition. 8. For the reasons aforestated, we dismiss this petition while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.