FAO No.2417 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2417 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:10.08.2010. Karam Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against order of the SDM-cum- Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar [for short “Tribunal”] dated 12.11.2009 by which an election petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been allowed and the election of Karam Singh as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Makowal, Block & Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar has been set aside. The learned Tribunal has set aside the election of Karam Singh as Sarpanch by observing as under: - “The ld. Counsel for the petitioners stated in his oral arguments that on 16.07.2008 the quorum was not complete for the election of Sarpanch and proceedings could not take place. Thereafter, this meeting was fixed on 19.07.2008 FAO No.2417 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ******* for which notices were received by the Panches. On the date of meeting, the police posted outside the room did not allow the petitioner No.2 and 3 to enter the room. For this reason all the four petitioners were in majority but the respondents being left out 3, respondent No.1 Karam Singh was declared elected for the post of Sarpanch. Karam Singh respondent No.4 did not appear as witness in the evidence. The difference in the lines of Resolution dated 16.07.2008 and 19.07.2008, clearly shows that the resolution had been written later on and the signatures of the petitioners were got on blank papers. The statement of an cross examination respondents differ from each other. It was mentioned in the proceedings of the meeting which was held on 16.07.2008 that all petitioners and respondents were present but petitioners refused to sign the proceedings. When all 7 members of the panchayat were present the meeting must have been held on that day. It is wrong to allege that the quorum was not complete as written by the Presiding Officer. Whereas Presiding Officer wanted to elect Karam Singh as Sarpanch and this was not acceptable to the petitioners. It clearly establishes the connivance of the Presiding Officer with the respondents. Due to this connivance the Presiding Officer did not allow the petitioner No.2 and 3 to enter the room of the meeting on 19.07.2008 and got elected respondent No.1 as Sarpanch in an illegal manner. Therefore, the election of Karam Singh be set aside and the petitioner No.1 may be declared as Sarpanch. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 to FAO No.2417 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ******* 3 stated in his oral arguments that meeting on 16.07.2008 was postponed due to incomplete quorum of the members. The meeting on 19.07.2008 was convened legally, and the charge of forcing the petitioner No.2 and 3 stopping out side the meeting room is illegal and is not established. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. The arguments of the ld. counsels were heard and the record of the case on file was carefully gone through. It is established that on 16.07.2008 all the 4 petitioners were present for the meeting but the Presiding Officer was under pressure, he therefore, postponed the meeting, where as the meeting should have held on that day. Therefore, the all actions were taken under pressure and in connivance with each other. On 19.07.2008, the Presiding Officer knowingly did not allow the petitioner No.2 & 3 to participate in the meeting with the help of police so that respondent can be declared as Sarpanch. Therefore, the meeting held on 19.07.2008 cannot be said to be legal. Therefore, the proceedings of the meeting held on 19.07.2008 is declared illegal, null and void and the election of Sarpanch of Karam Singh is set aside. It is ordered that election of Sarpanch be conducted in an impartial manner afresh. Copies of this order is sent to District Election Officer, Amritsar, and Election Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh for necessary action. Order announced. File may be completed and consigned to record room.” Learned counsel for the appellants though has argued with great vehemence that the learned Tribunal has erred in setting aside FAO No.2417 of 2010 (O&M) - 4 - ******* election of Karam Singh as Sarpanch in the absence of any complaint having been made by the election petitioners against the Presiding Officer to the police, but he could not substantiate his argument that it is required under any provision of law that in such circumstance a complaint could only be made to the police or the complaint could not be made directly to the Election Tribunal about the high-handedness on the part of the election machinery much-less the Presiding Officer. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any force in his argument nor do I find any error in the order of the learned Tribunal and as such the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. August 10, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE