JUDGMENT : Mr. B.S. Walia, J. Claim in the instant writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing Notification No. 5311/CEO/PYT/Notification/2011/3689-93, dated 05-04-2011 i.e. Annexure E, issued by Respondent No. I as also for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus for directing the official respondents to declare the petitioner as duly elected Panch, (uncontested), for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Ilalqa, Kathar, Block Bishnah, Jammu. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that vide Annexure A, Respondent No. 1, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 36 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued notification dated March 18, 2011 for election of Ranches and Sarpanches for various blocks, including Bishnah Block of Jammu which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman candidate. 3. The petitioner filed her nomination papers for contesting election of Ranch Constituency No. 7 i.e. Sheikhpur, of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah. Respondent No. 4 also filed nomination papers for contesting the election from the same constituency but without annexing the basic documents essentially required to be attached along with the nomination paper in terms of Rule 9-C of the Rules. Consequently on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure B i.e. PEL-9, dated March 26, 2011 accepted the nomination of the petitioner as the sole validly nominated candida to. 4. However, subsequently, Respondent No. 3 included the names of both the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 in form PEL-10 i.e. Annexure C i.e. list of contesting candidates, despite having initially issued Annexure B i.e. PEL-9, dated March 26, 2011 declaring the nomination of the petitioner as the sole validly nominated candidate. 5. The petitioner filed a complaint before Respondent No. 1 against the incorporation of the name of respondent No. 4 in the list of contesting candidates in response to which Respondent No. 1 vide letter Annexure D, dated March 29, 201.1 required Respondent No. 2 to obtain factual report from the Returning Officer concerned i.e. Respondent No. 3 and to send the same to the office of Respondent No. 1 with his comments. 6. 6. Eventually, notification Annexure E, dated April 5, 2011 was issued by Respondent No. 1 stated to be in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 36 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules rescinding notification Annexure A, dated March 18, 2011 for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah and declaring that fresh notification for the above said constituency would be issued in due course thereby impliedly rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. 7. Plea of the petitioner is that the incorporation of the name of Respondent No. 4 in form PEL-10 after the date of scrutiny and rejection of nomination paper of Respondent No. 4, issuance of form PEL 9 declaring the petitioner as the only validly nominated candidate as also impugned notification dated April 5, 2011 was contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules and that the impugned notification had been passed on wholly extraneous considerations contrary to the legal and Constitutional rights of the petitioner whereas in terms of the rules she was entitled to be declared elected uncontested as Panch. 8. That provisions of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy in the instant case are Rule 9 to 14 and the same deal with nomination and registration of candidates, scrutiny of nomination papers, rejection of nomination papers, withdrawal of candidature, publication of list of candidates and uncontested elections respectively. Aforementioned rules are reproduced hereunder:- 9. Nomination and registration of candidates.- On or before the last date of submission of nomination papers every candidate for election whose name is included in the electoral roll pertaining to the Panchayat shall deliver or cause to be delivered through his agent to the Returning Officer during office hours between 11 am to 3 p.m. a nomination paper in Form 1. 9-A. A nomination paper shall be accompanied by a security deposit of Rs. 100 in shape of bank draft pledged in the name of the Returning Officer of the Panchayat Halqa/Block Development Council payable at any branch of any nationalised/scheduled bank in the district in cash: Provided that in case of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe or women candidates the security deposit shall be Rs. 100 in shape of bank draft pledged in the name of the Returning Officer of the Panchayat Halqa/Block Development Council payable at any branch of any nationalised/scheduled bank in the district in cash: Provided that in case of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe or women candidates the security deposit shall be Rs. 50 only: Provided further that security deposit of a candidate getting ?th or more of the total valid votes polled will be refunded by the Returning Officer within a period of 90 days from the declaration of the result. 9-B. For candidates contesting elections on party basis the procedure to be followed for nomination shall be as prescribed by the Election Authority. 9-C. For candidates contesting election to the Panch seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the nomination paper shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority that he belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be. 10. Scrutiny of nomination papers.-At the time and on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers the Returning Officer shall allow the candidates reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers in presence of the candidates or their duly authorised agent present at the time. 11. Rejecting of nomination papers.- (1) The Returning Officer may reject any nomination paper on any one or more of the following grounds: (i) that the candidate has not correctly filled in the particulars required in Form 1; or (ii) that the candidate; is not eligible for being a member of a Panchayat Halqa under any provision of the Act; or (iii) that the candidate has not deposited the security deposit as prescribed under Rule 9-A: Provided that the Returning Officer may permit any misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical or printing error to be corrected any where necessary direct that any such misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper shall be over looked. (2) If any nomination paper is rejected under sub-rule (1) after hearing any objections made by a person or persons the Returning Officer shall record reasons for rejecting the nomination papers. 12. (2) If any nomination paper is rejected under sub-rule (1) after hearing any objections made by a person or persons the Returning Officer shall record reasons for rejecting the nomination papers. 12. Withdrawal of candidature.-(1) Any candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in Form 2 delivered before 3 O' clock in the afternoon on the date fixed under clause (c) of Rule 8 to the Returning Officer either by such candidate in person or by the election agent duly authorised by him. (2) No candidate who has given a notice of withdrawal, his candidature under sub-rule (1) above shall be allowed to cancel the notice. (3) The Security deposit shall be refunded to the candidate on the withdrawal of his candidature under sub-rule (1). 13. Publication of list of candidates.- After the expiry of date of withdrawal the Returning Officer shall publish a list of contesting candidates in alphabetical order. The alphabetical order shall be determined with reference to the names of the candidates. 14. Uncontested elections.-After the expiry of date of withdrawal, if number of contesting candidates in a constituency is only one, the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare such candidate as having been duly elected to such Panchayat Halqa/Constituency, as the case may be. 9. Apparently the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 had filed their nomination papers for contesting for Panch Constituency No. 7-Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah against the Scheduled Caste Category. Scrutiny of nomination papers filed by the candidates for the said constituency was taken up by the Returning Officer for the said constituency as per schedule on the due date i.e. March 26, 2011 and finding the nomination form of the petitioner alone as valid, the same was accepted while the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 being found to be invalid was rejected and the list of validly nominated candidates was issued by the Returning Officer in form PEL-9 on the same date declaring the petitioner alone as the validly nominated candidate. However despite having rejected the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 and issued the list of validly nominated candidates in form PEL on March 26, 2011, Respondent No. 3 accepted the nomination form oi Respondent No. 4 on March 28, 2011 and issued a list of contesting candidates in form PEL-10 mentioning therein the names of the petitioner and Respondent No. 4. 10. 10. Complaint in respect of the aforementioned action of Respondent No. 3 was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Electoral Officer eventually lead to issuance of notification Annexure E, dated April 5, 2011 rescinding notification Annexure A, dated March 18, 2011 for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah by Respondent No. 1 purportedly in exercise of powers u/s 36 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules besides ordering issuance of a fresh notification for the conduct of election to the said Panch constituency in due course. 11. Annexure E records a report having been submitted by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Returning Officer to Respondent No. 1 i.e. Chief Electoral Officer. Relevant extract of the report is as under: (1) that Smt. Sunita Devi had filed her nomination papers on 23-3-2011; (2) that while casual checking of the papers, the scheduled caste certificate was found missing with the papers; (3) that a special messenger was sent to her for fulfilling the deficiency; (4) that on the day of scrutiny, the candidate phoned the undersigned that she is coming along with the certificate but did not turn up till 3:00 p.m. so the undersigned fulfilled the PEL-9 devoid of her name; (5) that the candidate Smt. Janko Devi has filed at the last hour of scrutiny for the same which I kept pending till the next working day (Rule 6.11); (6) that on 28th i.e., next working day the candidate reported along with the certificate though late and requested for inclusion of her name; (7) that in order to settle down the issue amicably without creating any animosity between the two candidates in small village and to keep the village atmosphere calm, the undersigned included her name in the PEL-10.” 12. That Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Chief Electoral Officer, J&K while' noticing that in terms of Rule 9-C of the Rules, a candidate contesting election to a Panch seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste category had to attach the category certificate issued by the competent authority along with the nomination form, held that failure to do so would mean that the candidate did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for contesting against the seat of Panch reserved for Scheduled Caste category on the due date i.e. the date fixed for scrutiny i.e. March 26, 2011. 13. 13. That Respondent No. 1 while taking note of the Returning Officer having issued form PEL-9 reflecting the name of only the petitioner as the validly nominated candidate under the Scheduled Caste category for the post of Panch on March 26, 2011, vet on March 28, 2011 of having accepted the Scheduled Caste category certificate of Respondent No. 4 much beyond the deadline permissible under the rules as also of having issued form PEL-10 reflecting the name of the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 as the contesting candidates without first having included the name of Respondent No. 4 in form PEL-9 i.e. list of validly nominated candidates, while acknowledging improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 by the Returning Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3, yet held that continuation of such vitiated election proceedings would be wholly unnecessary and unjustified on account of huge burden on the contesting candidate and electors of the constituency apart from being a wasteful administrative effort and government expenditure in the conduct of such proceeding, consequentially rescinded notification Annexure A, dated March 18, 2011 for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah in exercise of powers u/s 36 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules besides ordered issuance of fresh notification for the conduct of election to the said Panch constituency in due course. 14. That it is beyond comprehension that when Respondent No. 1 had held in notification Annexure E that there was improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 by the Returning Officer, how the order for fresh election on grounds of huge burden on the contesting candidate and electors of the constituency apart from being a wasteful administrative effort and government expenditure in conduct of such proceeding was sustainable since in the circumstances, appropriate action was in terms of Rule 14 to declare the petitioner elected unopposed. Thus the reasoning given by Respondent No. 1 is absolutely wholly without any justifiable basis. The reasons given by Respondent No. 1 were thus not germane to the point in issue and did not under any circumstances justify rescinding of notification Annexure A, dated March 18, 2011 for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah besides ordering issuance of fresh notification for the conduct of election to the said Panch. 15. The reasons given by Respondent No. 1 were thus not germane to the point in issue and did not under any circumstances justify rescinding of notification Annexure A, dated March 18, 2011 for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah besides ordering issuance of fresh notification for the conduct of election to the said Panch. 15. As per Rule 9-C, a candidate contesting against a Panch seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste Category is required to attach a certificate issued by the competent authority of such candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Admittedly Respondent No. 4 did not attach with the nomination form the certificate issued by the competent authority of her belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category. The date for scrutiny of nominations was March 26, 2011. The certificate reflecting respondent No. 4 as belonging to the Scheduled Caste category was not filed by the said date i.e. date for scrutiny of nominations. 16. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of a significant aspect of the case i.e. repeated adjournments taken by the official respondents for filing objections but failing to file the same as also to produce the record before the High Court despite lapse of close to 4 years. The writ petition was filed in May 2011 on which date interim directions were issued directing that notification dated April 5, 2011 be not acted upon till next dale. On November 1, 2011, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stood duly served. Respondent No. 3 appeared in person before the registry while Respondent No. 4 refused to accept notice. On none appearing on behalf of the respondents on November 17, 2011 the matter was adjourned to December, 2011 and was listed on December 30,2011. on which date the Deputy Advocate General was granted 4 weeks time to file reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as also to keep the Chief Electoral Officer's records available when the petition came up for consideration. However, on the next date i.e. February 14, 2012, none was present on behalf of the respondents. The matter was adjourned and on the next date i.e. February 28, 2012 it was recorded that despite being directed to produce the record, neither the State Counsel was available nor had the record been produced. However, on the next date i.e. February 14, 2012, none was present on behalf of the respondents. The matter was adjourned and on the next date i.e. February 28, 2012 it was recorded that despite being directed to produce the record, neither the State Counsel was available nor had the record been produced. In the circumstances notice was directed to be issued to the Chief Electoral Officer for production of record pertaining to election in Panch constituency No. 7 Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa Kathar of Block Bishnah for the 3rd week of March, 2012. 17. On May 11, 2012 the Deputy Advocate General was granted last opportunity of one week to produce the record. However, on May 23, 2012 counsel appearing on behalf of the Deputy Advocate General was again granted further two weeks last and final opportunity to file objections on behalf of the respondent's with copy to the other side. On June 12, 2012 none was present on behalf of the respondents. On October 5, 2012 the writ petition was admitted and the Deputy Advocate General accepted notice for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On November 21, 2012 the Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought and was granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. On March 9, 2015 none was present on behalf of the respondents and on the statement of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the matter was ordered to be listed in the week commencing March 30, 2015. On September 30, 2015 when the matter came up for hearing none was present on behalf of the respondents. 18. That the conduct of the official respondents on account of not filing reply and not producing the record was suggestive of adoption of dilatory tactics apparently to scuttle dispensation of Justice despite the fact that it was the bounden duty of the respondents to place the correct and truthful position before the Court. On failure of the respondents to do so, it becomes incumbent upon the Court to ascertain the truth before deciding the matter. Reference in this connection is made to the decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to its observations in its earlier decision in Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. observed as under. “37 .... Reference in this connection is made to the decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to its observations in its earlier decision in Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. observed as under. “37 .... Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest.” (emphasis in original) 19. That the aforementioned observation assumes great significance in view of non filing of reply and withholding of record by the official respondents from the High Court for close to 4 years. In the aforementioned background, on December 14, 2015 while noticing the submissions on behalf of the petitioner as also of the plea of adoption of dilatory tactics on account of non filing of reply despite numerous opportunities, while adjourning the matter to December 28, 2015 one last opportunity was granted to the official respondents to file reply within one week where after the same was permitted to be filed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- and further that in case no reply was filed then record was to be produced on December 28, 2015 by Respondent No. 2 who was to remain present in Court to assist the Court. 20. That on the next date Respondent No. 2 filed status report only pleading therein that he had no role to play in the matter. However, on December 28, 2015 the record was available with the Ld. Additional Advocate General. The case was adjourned for hearing on December 31, 2015 but on request of Ld. Additional Advocate General for time to arrange the record, the matter was posted for hearing on January 1, 2016 on which date learned AAG submitted relevant record in Court, arguments were heard and case reserved for orders. 21. That at this stage it would be relevant to refer to Letter No. CEO/Panchayat/2012/3346, dated March 6, 2012 from the Joint Chief Electoral Officer to the then Deputy Advocate General forwarding ten leaves of record pertaining to OWP No. 515/2011, pursuant to Court order dated 30.12.2011. 21. That at this stage it would be relevant to refer to Letter No. CEO/Panchayat/2012/3346, dated March 6, 2012 from the Joint Chief Electoral Officer to the then Deputy Advocate General forwarding ten leaves of record pertaining to OWP No. 515/2011, pursuant to Court order dated 30.12.2011. Record forwarded vide aforementioned letter was merely four leaves of notification dated April 5, 2011, one leaf of letter dated March 29, 2011 from the Joint Electoral Officer to the District Panchayat Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner) Jammu, one leaf of letter dated March 30, 2011 from the District Panchayat Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner) Jammu to the Chief Electoral Officer, Jammu, one leaf of letter dated March 29, 2011 from Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1, one leaf of letter dated March 28, 2011 from Respondent No. 3 purportedly to the petitioner in response to her objections of acceptance of form of Respondent No. 4 (interestingly the said letter contains a note dated March 29, 2011 to obtain report from Respondent No. 3 as to how he had decided after the date of scrutiny of the papers), one leaf of form PEL-9 and one leaf of form PEL-10, total 10 leafs. 22. That record which was submitted in Court on December 31, 2015 was kept a closely guarded secret for close to 4 years i.e. record pertaining to objections filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. 3, orders passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the nomination form of Respondent No. 4, letter from Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3 dated March 28, 2011 as also other connected record. The aforementioned record was not forwarded by the Joint Electoral Officer while forwarding the record to the Deputy Advocate General vide letter dated 06.03.2012 with the result that the record forwarded was of no use to the Deputy Advocate General for assisting the High Court. Photocopy of record produced by the learned AAG i.e. objections filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. 3, orders passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the nomination form of Respondent No. 4, letter from Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3 dated March 28, 2011, as well as undated writing of Respondent No. 3 accepting form of Respondent No. 4 are marked as Exhibit A, B, C and D respectively and are taken on record. 23. 23. Maybe, the aforementioned record was not available with the Chief Electoral Officer, therefore the same was not forwarded to the Deputy Advocate General. However, if the same was not available then it is apparent that notification Annexure E, dated April 5, 2011 was recorded without perusal of the record despite the same having a significant bearing on the outcome of the case. Further, if the said record was not available with the Chief Electoral Officer earlier, then how come the same has been produced in the High Court on December 31, 2015. It may also be that the said record was withheld by Respondent No. 3 and not brought to the notice of Respondent No. 1. 24. That in any case, aforementioned withheld record goes to the root of the matter. Perusal of aforementioned record gives an indication of why the same was withheld from Court for close to 41/2 years, why objections were not filed and why the case was dragged on for almost the entire term of the Panchayat of five years. The non filing of rely, non production of relevant record till December 31, 2015, the Chief Electoral Officer forwarding through the Joint Chief Electoral Officer vide letter dated March 6,2012 record which was of no use for adjudication of the controversy also speaks volumes of the attempt on the part of the official respondents to prevent truth from coming to light. 25. That a perusal of the record reveals that an objection was filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Returning Officer that the candidature of Respondent No. 4 be rejected on account of her not having-filed certificate of being Scheduled Caste as also State Subject. On receipt of the said objections, Respondent No. 3 passed the following order qua the nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 as per proforma prescribed: Decision of Returning Officer Accepting or rejecting the nomination paper. I have examined this nomination paper in accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and Rules made there under and decide as under: 26/3/2011 “The nomination form is rejected since Smt. Sunita Devi has failed to produce the document in support of her being a State Subject. The State subject submitted is valid only upto marriage hence keeps no weight. Further the caste certificate is lacking. The State subject submitted is valid only upto marriage hence keeps no weight. Further the caste certificate is lacking. Besides reminders the candidate could not produce the same upto 3:15 P.M. Returning Officer Sd/- Returning Officer Panchayat Block Bishnah Hence Rejected Accepted after giving time as per 6.11 - Sd/-” 26. That it would be relevant to mention here that form PEL-9 declaring the petitioner to be the only validly nominated candidate was issued by Respondent No. 3 on passing of aforementioned order rejecting the nomination form of Respondent No. 4. Apparently, interlineation of the words “besides reminders the candidate could not produce the same upto 3:15 P.M. HENCE REJECTED Accepted after giving time as per 6.11 - Sd/- “were interpolated in the rejection order much later then the passing of order rejecting the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 as is apparent from the fact that in the meantime PEL form-9 had been issued declaring the petitioner to be the only validly nominated candidate, secondly the interpolated words have been added after the order rejecting the nomination form had ended as is evident from the fact of a full stop having been affixed after the last word in the order of rejection i.e. “lacking”. The words HENCE REJECTED are also superfluous in view of the order starting with the rejection of nomination form of Respondent No. 4 on account of State Subject being valid only upto marriage hence being of no weight and secondly in view of Respondent No. 4 not having attached Scheduled Caste Certificate. 27. That despite order of rejection of nomination form of Respondent No. 4 having been passed on March 26, 2011 and form PEL-9 having been issued on the same date, on March 28, 2011, Respondent No. 4 gave an application to Respondent No. 3 that she had received her Scheduled Caste certificate at 1:25 P.M. therefore her form of Panch be accepted for the election to the Panchayat. Thereupon, Respondent No. 3 accepted the Scheduled Caste Category Certificate from Respondent No. 4 and issued form PEL-10 i.e. Annexure C i.e. list of contesting candidates indicating therein the names of both the petitioner as well as Respondent NO. 4 despite having initially rejected Respondent No. 4's nomination form and without the name of Respondent No. 4 having been incorporated in form PEL-9 i.e. list of validly nominated candidates. 4 despite having initially rejected Respondent No. 4's nomination form and without the name of Respondent No. 4 having been incorporated in form PEL-9 i.e. list of validly nominated candidates. Besides, the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on two counts i.e. on account of non submission of Scheduled Caste Certificate besides the State Subject Certificate submitted being valid only till marriage. However, on March 28,2011 the nomination paper was treated as valid on more submission of Scheduled Caste Certificate without making any reference of State Subject Certificate that too when form PEL-9 declaring the petitioner to be the only validly nominated candidate had been issued on March 26, 2011. The same also explains the reason for tampering in order of rejection of nomination form of Respondent No. 4. 28. That despite having rejected the nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 on March 26,2011, Respondent No. 3 had the audacity to tamper with the documents to project that on March 26, 2011 he had kept the matter w.r.t. non production of State Subject and Scheduled Caste certificate open to be reviewed on March 28, 2011 at 11.00 A.M. The same was done by making interlineations subsequent to Respondent No. 3 affixing his signatures on the objections as is evident from the order passed by him rejecting the nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 on March 26, 2011 as also from the manner in which the interlineations have been made on the objections. 29. That it also needs mention that objections were filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. Bin Hindi. Orders were passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the nomination papers of Respondent No. 4 on the proforma specified for the same. Thereafter, recording of remarks on the objections to project that decision had not been taken qua the validity of nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 does not commend to reason except where it be by way of tampering of documents. Signatures of the Returning Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3 are recorded on the objections filed by the petitioner. However, interlineations were made above the signatures of Respondent No. 3 that Respondent No. 4 had failed to produce the documents in support of her being a State Subject and also Scheduled Caste certificate which was mandatory for the constituency. Signatures of the Returning Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3 are recorded on the objections filed by the petitioner. However, interlineations were made above the signatures of Respondent No. 3 that Respondent No. 4 had failed to produce the documents in support of her being a State Subject and also Scheduled Caste certificate which was mandatory for the constituency. The words “which is mandatory for” are recorded above the signatures of the petitioner which are in Hindi. Thereafter three more lines have been added i.e. “the constituency i.e. Sheikhpur up to 3.15 P.M. However review shall be done on 28.03.2011 at 11.00 A.M.” 30. That interestingly the word “for” following the words “which is mandatory” is recorded above the signature of petitioners name i.e. Janko in hindi where after the words “upto 3.15 P.M.” following the words “the constituency i.e. Sheikhpur” are recorded in between the lines containing the signature of the petitioner and her husband's name in Hindi by overwriting “28.03.2011” over the; words “w/o” before the petitioners husband's name Mohinder Lal which is in hindi. Since there was no further space after the interlineated words 28.03.2011 on account of the name of the petitioners husband's name being recorded therein, the words “at 11:00 A.M.” were written in the next line. On the left-hand side of the signature of the returning officer the words Janko Devi are written in english whereas the objections are in hindi and signatures of Janko Devi on the objections are also in hindi. Without commenting as to whether the said words in english are in the handwriting of the petitioner it is clear that the remarks recorded by the returning officer in English after the objections were incorporated by making interlineation obviously subsequently as is evident from the placement of the words up to 3:15 P.M. as also the words 28.03.2011 by overwriting over the words W/o as also from the narrowing of the spacing in the last three lines of remarks recorded by Respondent No. 3 in comparison to the first four lines of the remarks recorded by Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Returning Officer as also the other discrepancies noticed qua order rejecting nomination form of Respondent No. 4 passed by Respondent No. 3. Besides, there is no reference by Respondent No. 3 that the signatures of Janko Devi were obtained before ordering review on March 28, 2011 and that too after having rejected the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 as also of having issued form PEL-9 declaring the petitioner as the only validly nominated candidate. The remarks by Respondent No. 3 on the objections filed by the petitioner are superfluous in view of specific order dated March 26, 2011 by Respondent No. 3 as per proforma rejecting the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 though even the said order has been tampered with after recording the same. 31. That the mischief played by the Returning Officer is further evident from the note recorded on the reverse side of the page containing the objections that Respondent No. 4 had been given time to produce the relevant document by 11 A.M. on 28th of March 2011 and that the candidate produced the said certificate on March 28, 2011 around noon i.e. about 1 hour beyond the period up to which time had been granted besides giving detailed reasons for accepting the same around noon. However the grant of time to Respondent No. 4 to produce the certificate up to 11 A.M. on 28th of March 2011 stands falsified from the decision of Respondent No. 3 dated March 26, 2011 rejecting the nomination paper of Respondent No. 4 on account of non submission of Scheduled Caste Certificate as also on account of the State Subject Certificate submitted being valid only till marriage. Besides the rejection of nomination form of Respondent No. 4 was also subsequently cancelled by making interpolation as has been referred to earlier in paragraph No. 26 above. Besides grant of time for production of relevant documents does not find mention in the remarks on the objections page, instead the words used are “review shall be done on 28.03.2011 at 11.00 A.M” Apparently the reason for not mentioning in the remarks that time had been granted to Respondent No. 4 to produce the Scheduled Caste Certificate up to 11 A.M. on 28th of March 2011 was the lack of space for making an incorporation to the above effect on the objections page where the remarks had been entered by way of interlineations. The subsequent exercise to project time having been granted on March 26, 2011 to Respondent No. 4 also stands falsified from issuance of form PEL-9 on March 26, 2011 declaring the petitioner alone as the validly nominated candidate. The falsity of the stand of Respondent No. 3 as also subsequent preparation of documents is also evident from the fact that Respondent No. 4 gave in writing on March 28, 2011 that she had received the Scheduled Caste Certificate at 1.25 p.m. and the same be accepted whereas Respondent No. 3 recorded on the reverse of the objections that time had been granted to Respondent No. 4 till March 28, 2011 uptil 11.00 A.M but, that she had produced the same about an hour Sate and being a far flung area and having low connectivity it had been decided to accept the form. Obviously if Respondent No. 4 got the certificate at 1.25 P.M., then she must have reached much later for as per the own showing of Respondent No. 3 the area was a far flung area and having low connectivity whereas Respondent No. 3 has recorded that he accepted the form around noon. Once Respondent No. 4 mentioned in her application that she received the certificate at 1.25 p.m. then it is beyond comprehension as to how Respondent No. 3 could have received the same around noon. Apparently, Respondent No. 3 has repeatedly lied to conceal the fraud on the exercise of power by him. 32. That the instant case is an example of misuse of power by a government servant charged with performance of a public duty. The sequence of events noted hereunder leads to an inescapable conclusion of the alarming and disturbing violation of the rights of the petitioner by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Returning Officer in the election for Panch for Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa, Kathar, Block Bishnah, Jammu. Petitioners grievance in respect thereto before Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Chief Electoral Officer apparently has been dealt with, without considering the record. On the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, adjudication thereof was delayed due to non filing of reply by the respondents besides non production of the record despite the pendency of the petition before the High Court for close to 4 years. Record as forwarded by the Joint Chief Electoral Officer to the Deputy Advocate General was irrelevant and of no use. Record as forwarded by the Joint Chief Electoral Officer to the Deputy Advocate General was irrelevant and of no use. Apparently, the relevant record was withheld from the High Court by the official respondents till 31st December 2015 with a view to prevent the truth from coming to light and the official respondents had no option but to produce the same in view of directions of the Court directing Respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner to be present along with the record to assist the Court in the eventuality of reply not being filed. The same reflects a very unfortunate state of affairs. In the process, the petitioner has been deprived of discharging her functions as a duly elected unopposed Panch for no fault of hers, solely due to fraudulent misuse of power by Respondent No. 3, suppression of factual position/record by the official respondents from this Court for 41/2 years till 31st December 2015 apparently to prevent truth from coming to light and dispensation of justice in the light of the same. 33. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 , while taking note of the fall from the high standards of morality cherished earlier in Society with litigants now not hesitating from suppressing factual position in order to prevent truth from coming to light and of the requirement of such class of litigants who attempted to pollute the stream of justice to be dealt with appropriately, observed as under: “1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the; old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.” 34. Truth was sought to be suppressed by the official respondents. In the process, the petitioner has been treated unfairly. The materialism has overshadowed the; old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.” 34. Truth was sought to be suppressed by the official respondents. In the process, the petitioner has been treated unfairly. Valuable Court time as also of the counsel representing the State has been wasted which would otherwise could have been utilised for deciding/defending respectively, other cases. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 , while relying on its earlier decision can aptly be referred to as under: “45. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, to enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that truth alone triumphs in the courts. Xxx 82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. 35. The sequence of events reflects a very unfortunate state of affairs. The petitioner has been deprived of working as a Panch for no fault of hers, solely due to fraud of Respondent No. 3, casual and indifferent approach of Respondent No. 1 besides unfair approach of official respondents withholding relevant record till December 31, 2015. 36. That as per Section 5 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, the term of Office of a Panch of the Halqa Panchayat is for a period of five years from the date of its constitution. The same is virtually over. The clock cannot be turned back and time gone by is gone forever. The petitioner can never be compensated for the same. How ever, justice has to be done and appropriate action taken qua the conduct of the official respondents. 37. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Notification Annexure E, dated April 5, 2011 issued by Respondent No. 1 i.e. Chief Electoral Officer deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is declared elected as Panch for Panch Constituency Sheikhpur of Panchayat Halqa, Kathar, Block Bishnah, Jammu unopposed in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules. Strictly speaking, no relief in the literal sense of the word can be granted to the petitioner as the term of Panch of the constituency for which she had filed her nomination in 2011 is virtually over. However, a few days remain. In the circumstances the petitioner will forthwith be installed as Panch for completing the remaining days of the term by issuance of a notification in terms of Section 4(7) of the Act an production of certified copy of this order. Taking the circumstances of the case into account in totality, I am of the considered view that exemplary costs be imposed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed in terms as noted above with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. Taking the circumstances of the case into account in totality, I am of the considered view that exemplary costs be imposed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed in terms as noted above with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) to be paid by the official respondents to the petitioner within four weeks from today. However, the official respondents would be at liberty to recover the same later from the concerned in accordance with law. Compliance report be filed with the Registrar Judicial of this Court on expiry of four weeks stipulated above. After noticing the dilatory tactics resorted to by the respondents in not filing the reply nor producing the record before the High Court for close to 4 years, it is in the interest of justice deemed appropriate to direct that the State lays down guidelines for its officers with regard to the time frame within which reply is to be prepared and filed in Court on receipt of notice and in case of failure of the officer responsible to adhere to the time frame for preparation and filing of reply as also for production of record as per directions of the Court, the concerned officer responsible be made accountable and appropriate action be taken in respect thereto as per law. Record as produced by the learned Additional Advocate General be returned.