FAO No. 5687 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5687 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Balwinder Kaur and others .. Appellants v. Balwinder Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. S. Verka, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Vipin Mahajan and Mr. Raj Karan, Advocates for respondent No. 3. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 4.9.2009, passed by Election Tribunal, Batala (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the election petition filed by the appellants challenging the election of Balwinder Kaur (respondent No. 1) as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ali Nangal, Block Dera Baba Nanak, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is a case in which on account of manipulation, respondent No. 1 has been declared elected as Sarpanch only for the reason that her name was same as that of appellant No. 1. In fact, in the election of Sarpanch, appellant No. 1 was proposed and declared elected. However, mis-using the fact that the name of appellant No. 1 as well as respondent No. 1 was same, while finally recording the name, respondent No. 1 was shown to have been elected as Sarpanch. The Gram Panchayat consisted of five Panches. The election petition was filed by three Panches, who were and are in majority. This FAO No. 5687 of 2009 [2] fact is corroborated from the fact that even after his election as Sarpanch, respondent No. 1 could not carry on any of the activities of the Gram Panchayat, as a result of which Administrator had to be appointed by District Development and Panchayat Officer on 25.2.2009, 23.4.2010 and 11.5.2010. Further he referred to the cross-examination of respondent No. 1, wherein she categorically admitted that in her group, Sarabjit Singh was supporting him and further that the present appellants, who were petitioners before the Tribunal, were united till the date her statement was recorded. She had further admitted that she belonged to Akali Party and had been made Sarpanch at the instance of Nirmal Singh Kahlon, who incidentally happens to be a Minister in Punjab. Referring to the aforesaid statement and other material on record, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this itself was sufficient to declare the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to be void. The conduct of the State was also commented upon by stating that since the appointment of the Administrator on 25.2.2009 till date, no efforts have been made by the State to hand over the power to the elected Panch. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the case in hand, there is no irregularity in the election of the Sarpanch. In the meeting initially held, only two Panches were present. The same had to be postponed. In the next meeting, all the Panches were present. The name of respondent No. 1 was proposed and she was declared elected. The resolution was duly signed by four of the Panches and it is only appellant No. 1, who did not sign the proceedings. He further submitted that development activities in the village is going on smoothly with the appointment of the Administrator. In fact, no change in system as such is required. As far as statement of respondent No. 1 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the same should not be given any undue weightage for the reason that respondent No. 1 is an illiterate lady. She did not understand what to state in the court in her statement. Merely for that reason, she should not be made to suffer. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. FAO No. 5687 of 2009 [3] As is evident from the record, in the present case the fact that appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 were of same name has been mis- used by the authority. In the proceedings book, when the name of Balwinder Kaur was proposed for the purpose of Sarpanchship, her husband's name was not mentioned, whereas when she was declared elected, husband's name was mentioned as of respondent No. 1. Against the proposed name of Balwinder Kaur, name of her husband having not been mentioned, she was shown to have been seconded by Rajinder Kaur. There was no other name proposed. It is admitted by respondent No. 1 in her cross-examination that the present appellants were together from the very beginning. Rajinder Kaur is supporting appellant No. 1. Her name may have been mentioned as a seconder of the candidature of Balwinder Kaur by misleading her that it is Balwinder Kaur wife of Joginder Singh, whose name has been proposed for Sarpanchship. Otherwise once the present appellants, who are three out of the Panchayat consisting of five Panches, and are in majority would have certainly proposed the name of any one of them for the purpose of Sarpanchship. Another factor which is important and casts shadow in the entire process of election of Sarpanch is the statement of respondent No. 1 in her cross-examination, where in addition to the fact that the appellants are together from the very beginning, whereas on her side was only one Panch, namely, Sarabjit Singh, she categorically stated that she belonged to Akali Party, which is in power in the State and further that she had been made Sarpanch at the instance of Nirmal Singh Kahlon, who incidentally happens to be a Minister in the Akali Government. This is not a case in isolation. In number of cases pertaining to the elections of Panchayat in Punjab by manipulating the meetings, the persons who were in minority were got declared as Sarpanch. Further the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents raises a suspicion, namely, that respondents No. 1 and 2 are happy even if the Administrator continues to work. It is only for the reason that she is sure of the fact that in case re-elections for the Sarpanch is conducted, she will not be successful for the reason that she is in FAO No. 5687 of 2009 [4] minority and she does not want that appellant No. 1 should be the Sarpanch. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellants is accepted and the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch is set aside. The competent authority is directed to hold fresh elections of Sarpanch within a period of two months from the submission of copy of this order. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.5.2011 mk