Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 189 (PNJ)

Manjit Kaur v. Charanjit Kaur

2010-01-11

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2010
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Election Tribunal, Amritsar dated 13.10.2009, whereby an election petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed and election of appellant No. 1. has been set aside with a direction that a fresh election, for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nawan Kot, be held in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the general election held for Panchayats in the State of Punjab, for the Gram Panchayat of village Nawan Kot, appellant No. 1 (Manjit Kaur) appellant No. 2 (Sukhdev Singh) were elected from General Category, respondent No. 1. (Charanjit Kaur) was elected from Scheduled Caste (Woman) Category, respondent No. 2. (Sukhwinder Singh) was elected from Scheduled Caste Category and respondent No. 3. (Natha Singh) was elected as Panch in B.C. Category respectively. The election for the office of Sarpanch of village Nawan Kot was held on 17.7.2008 in which Manjit Kaur, appellant No. 1, was elected as Sarpanch being the only contesting candidate. She was proposed by Sukhdev Singh, appellant No. 2 and seconded by Natha Singh, respondent No. 3. Election of appellant No. 1. Manjit Kaur was called in question by Charanjit Kaur, Panch S.C. (Woman), Sukhdev Singh, Panch (S.C.) and Natha Singh Panch (B.C.) by filing an election petition under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 .(for short, -the Act-) read with Rules 50 and 51 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (for short, -the Rules-) on the ground that she has been elected by practising fraud by forging signatures of seconder Natha Singh, Panch (B.C.) 3. After appreciating the evidence available on the file. the learned Tribunal held that majority of panches was not with the appellant Manjit Kaur as the signatures of Natha Singh were found to be forged. The learned Tribunal accordingly observed thus -- "Original record i.e. the proceeding book was presented before the Court and the signature of Natha Singh were compared to the signatures scribed in the proceeding book. It was found that the signature of Natha Singh scribed for the purpose of attendance in the proceeding book were totally different from the signature scribed after-wards in the proceeding book on the same day. It was found that the signature of Natha Singh scribed for the purpose of attendance in the proceeding book were totally different from the signature scribed after-wards in the proceeding book on the same day. Presiding Officer respondent No. 3 in his cross examination has also admitted that the signatures of Natha Singh scribed afterwards are different from the earlier signature marked for presence in the proceeding book. Moreover, Natha Singh petitioner has also proved by his evidence that the signatures scribed afterwards in the proceeding book are not his signatures and these have been forged. The examination of both the signatures with naked eye clearly shows that the signatures of Natha Singh have been forged at a later page. Therefore, election petition is accepted and election of respondent No. 1. Manjit Kaur as Sarpanch is hereby set aside." 4. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has primarily argued that in view of Section 19 of the Act, -no confidence motion- against an elected Sarpanch cannot be moved by the panches before the expiry of two years from the date a Sarpanch assumes his office, 5. I am afraid that the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellant is neither here nor there in the facts and circumstances of the case because in this case, election of appellant No. 1. has been challenged only on the ground of fraud which has been found as a fact by the learned Tribunal that signatures of Natha Singh, Panch (B.C.) have been forged in order to elect appellant No. 1 by showing her majority. 6. The learned counsel has miserably failed to find fault with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Moreover, this Court has also examined the signatures of Natha Singh on both the proceedings, which of course are altogether different. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs.