Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2043 (PNJ)

Piara Singh v. Surjit Singh

2011-11-14

MOHINDER PAL

body2011
JUDGMENT MOHINDER PAL, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioners-appellants under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 for declaring the election of respondent Surjit Singh as Sarpanch of Village Mallewal as illegal, null and void. It was submitted that election for the office of Panches of Village Gram Panchayat, Mallewal was held on 26.05.2008. The petitioners as well as respondents No.1 to 3 declared as duly elected Panches of this Gram Panchayat. Further for the election of Sarpanch, Sarwan Singh, Fishery Officer, Batala was appointed as the Returning Officer. After the election of the duly elected Panches, the local MLA who happens to be a Cabinet Minister in the Punjab Government was pressuring the said Sarwan Singh to get respondent No.1 Surjit Singh declared as elected Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat, Mallewal but the majority of the Panches were not with him. The Presiding Officer Sarwan Singh refused to obey the illegal directions and proceeded on leave. Ultimately, new Presiding Officer, namely, Gurdev Singh respondent No.4 was assigned the job for conducting election of Sarpanch. The petitioners and other Panches of Gram Panchayat were informed to come present on 18.07.2008 at 1.00 P.M. in the office of Market Committee, Kalanaur for the purpose of election of Sarpanch. When the petitioners as well as other members reached at the appointed place and time, they were informed that Sarwan Singh has proceeded on leave. It was also informed that now election will be held under the new Presiding Officer, namely, Gurdev Singh respondent No.4 and fresh notice regarding the convening of the meeting will be issued. After few days, the petitioners came to know that respondent No.4 Gurdev Singh has declared respondent No.1 Surjit Singh as duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mallewal without convening the meeting of the Panches. The petitioners reported the matter to the higher authorities and the District Development Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur. One Surjit Singh Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kalanaur (for short as 'BDPO') was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In his report, he observed that on the fixed date for the election of Sarpanch, Gurdev Singh Presiding Officer did not come there. The petitioners reported the matter to the higher authorities and the District Development Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur. One Surjit Singh Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kalanaur (for short as 'BDPO') was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In his report, he observed that on the fixed date for the election of Sarpanch, Gurdev Singh Presiding Officer did not come there. The Inquiry Officer further reported that he visited the venue of the election on the day for number of times but the Presiding Officer was absent. It was found that the Presiding Officer has declared respondent No.1 Surjit Singh as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat at some secret place. Finally, he concluded that respondent No.1 in connivence with the Presiding Officer has committed serious corrupt practices and the Presiding Officer illegally declared respondent No.1 as duly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 2. After notice, respondents No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel while respondent No.4 Gurdev Singh, Presiding Officer appeared in person. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the election of respondent No.1 for the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mallewal is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP 2. Relief. 4. The Tribunal dismissed this petition by taking into consideration the fact that the proceedings dated 19.07.2008 were signed by Manjit Kaur, Member Panchayat against whom there was allegation that she was supporter of petitioner No.1. Further, the petitioner failed to prove that signatures of Manjit Kaur were forged or fabricated. The election petition has been dismissed. 5. Aggrieved from this order of the Tribunal, the appellants have come in appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that initially Sarwan Singh, Fishery Officer, Batala was appointed as Returning Officer for conducting the Panchayat Election but subsequently he was changed and one Gurdev Singh was appointed as Returning Officer because earlier Returning Officer refused to succumb to the pressure of local MLA. It is submitted that the appellants and other Panches were issued notice to come present on 18.07.2008 at 1.00 P.M. However, later on, the Returning Officer was changed and without informing them regarding the next date or time of election, respondent No.4 in connivence with respondent No.1 held the election at some secret place and illegally declared respondent No.1 as elected Sarpanch of the Village. To strengthen these arguments, he has referred to Annexure A-1/T report of Surjit Singh BDPO, who was entrusted inquiry to look into the matter. Finally, it has been prayed that in view of this grave irregularity, election of respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that respondent No.3 Manjit Kaur alleged supporter of the appellant in her statement Annexure A-6/T has stated that her signatures were there on resolution dated 19.07.2008. As she has participated in the election and has signed the proceedings, it cannot be said that the election has been held at a secret place or that no notice has been sent to the other Panches of the Gram Panchayat and respondent No.1 has been declared elected Sarpanch of Village in connivence with respondent No.4 Gurdev Singh. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 9. There is no doubt that the appellants along with respondents No.1 to 3 are duly elected Panches of Gram Panchayat of Village Mallewal. It is also not disputed that earlier Sarwan Singh was appointed as the Presiding Officer to conduct the election of Sarpanch on 18.07.2008. However, the Presiding Officer proceeded on leave and new Presiding Officer was entrusted the job of conducting election. The main ground of the appellants in this case is that they were not informed regarding time and place of the election which were alleged to be held on 19.07.2008. On the other hand, it is argument of the respondents that since respondent No.3 Manjit Kaur was one of the supporter of appellant Piara Singh and has signed the proceedings, it cannot be said that the other Panches were not having any knowledge regarding the date and time of the election held under Gurdev Singh respondent No.4. There is a document Annexure A-1/T, the inquiry report by Surjit Singh BDPO which has been placed on record. It has been reported that on the day when Sarpanch was to be elected, Gurdev Singh, the Returning Officer absolutely not came to the place of election. The inquiry officer time and again had rounds of the spot, however, Gurdev Singh was absent. It has been reported that on the day when Sarpanch was to be elected, Gurdev Singh, the Returning Officer absolutely not came to the place of election. The inquiry officer time and again had rounds of the spot, however, Gurdev Singh was absent. He was also informed by Surjit Singh VDO-cum-concerned Panchayat Secretary that some unknown persons came to his house and the proceeding book was with them. He has reported that these persons forcibly obtained his signatures on the proceeding book and on the next date, Surjit Singh Panchayat Secretary sent his leave application for the period 20.07.2008 to 27.07.2008 to his office. Manjit Kaur PW-4 has also appeared for the proceedings before the Tribunal. Her evidence Annexure A-6/T has been placed on record though in her statement she has admitted that her signatures were there on resolution dated 19.07.2008, copy of which is Ex.R1 with the file. However, it has been said that her signatures have been obtained by cheating on 21.07.2008. She has absolutely denied that she has attended the meeting on 19.07.2008 or that the other Member Panchayat was present in that meeting. Surjit Singh, Panchayat Secretary PW5 has also produced his affidavit wherein it is stated that he has not signed on resolution dated 19.07.2008 regarding the election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It will be pertinent to mention here that it is duty of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to record the proceedings of the election and that of the Panchayat working. This witness has been further put to cross-examination and his cross-examination Annexure A-9/T has been placed on file. In his cross-examination, he has further reiterated that he has not signed resolution Mark 'A' dated 19.07.2008. This resolution was not passed in his presence nor that he was given notice to come present on 19.07.2008 for the purpose of election. 10. After going through the evidence brought on record by the witnesses of the appellants, I have no doubt that the election of Sarpanch has been held in an unfair manner and respondent No.1 has been wrongly elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat. The inquiry Officer Surjit Singh BDPO has clearly mentioned in his inquiry report that Gurdev Singh, the Presiding Officer never went to the place of election nor conducted any proceedings and gave notice to the Panches for the date or the time of the election. The inquiry Officer Surjit Singh BDPO has clearly mentioned in his inquiry report that Gurdev Singh, the Presiding Officer never went to the place of election nor conducted any proceedings and gave notice to the Panches for the date or the time of the election. Surjit Singh Secretary of the Village Panchayat has also stated in so many words that he has not participated in the election and certain people came to his residence with the proceeding book and obtained his signatures forcibly. Sarwan Singh also creates doubt in the fairness and in the manner in which the election has been held. 11. Resultantly, the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 are reversed by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2009. The election of respondent No.1 Surjit Singh is declared to be null and void for the post of Sarpanch of Village Mallewal. The concerned Deputy Commissioner is directed to conduct fresh election by convening a meeting of all the Panches and Secretary concerned. All the Panches will put in appearance before the Deputy Commissioner on 01.12.2011 where fresh election will be held. It is made clear that for some reason or the other, elections are not held on 01.12.2011, the same will be held on the next working day and, thereafter, Sarpanch of the village will be elected. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.