Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 704 (JK)

Uttam Chand v. State Of J&K

2013-12-03

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2013
1. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26th of May, 2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Collector) Billawar as an Appellate Authority under Section 43 of the Jammu & Kashmir, Panchayati Raj Act, 1989. 2. It is stated that election for the post of Sarpanch for Panchayat Halqa, Kandharnoo, block Billawar, district Kathua was held on 4th of May, 2011 in which respondent No. 7, namely, Hukkam Chand was declared elected by a margin of five votes. 3. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority, alleging corrupt practices in the process of election. 4. To name a few, the appellant/petitioner herein alleged in the memo of appeal that some of the voters had cast their votes twice including one Sadiq Ahmed. It was further alleged that some of the female voters, who had been married in different cities, came to the village and cast their votes. One Shakeela Akhtar and Sunita Sharma were cited as examples. Both of them are stated to have migrated after their marriage out of the Panchayat in question. 5. Other allegations included proxy voting and votes cast on behalf of the persons, who had been missing from the village since long. 6. By virtue of order dated 26th of May, 2011, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. A reference to the order impugned would show that insofar as the allegations regarding Sadiq Ahmed was concerned, it was found to be correct as the said person had cast his vote twice being at Sr. No. 37 and 39 of the Voter list. 9. Regarding the other allegations also, the Appellate Authority dealt individually with the same and returned a finding, rejecting those grounds. Finally, the Appellate Authority held that since the irregularity had been proved only in case of one vote, which has been cast twice at Sr. No. 37 and 39 in Ward No. 5, it was not enough for changing the result of the election. The Appellate Authority accordingly while dismissing the appeal held that there was no need for declaring the result of the election in Panchayat Halqa, Kandharnoo as null and void. 10. No. 37 and 39 in Ward No. 5, it was not enough for changing the result of the election. The Appellate Authority accordingly while dismissing the appeal held that there was no need for declaring the result of the election in Panchayat Halqa, Kandharnoo as null and void. 10. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Appellate Authority had not dealt with the points, which were agitated by the petitioner in the appeal and that he was not given an opportunity of being heard. However, from the perusal of the order impugned, it appears clearly that all concerned were heard in the matter before the final order was passed by the authority concerned. 11. The issues having been dealt with in extenso by the Appellate Authority, the impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any illegality. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with CMA No. 1821/2011.