FAO No.3952 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3952 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011 Palwinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R.N. Moudgil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short “the Tribunal”) allowing the petition filed by respondent No.1, whereby election of the appellant to the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Ladha Munda, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, was set aside. Briefly, the facts as are available on record are, that the appellant contested election for the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Ladha Munda, which was held on May 26, 2008. Respondent No.1 having not been declared successful, filed election petition seeking declaration that the appellant has been wrongly elected as Panch and also for declaring him as a winning candidate. The election petition having been allowed by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 77 (a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) in clear terms provides that the election petitioner is required to join in his petition, all the contesting candidates in case a declaration has been sought that election of all or any of the returned candidates is void. The Section does not provide that only the candidates who contested election in a particular category are to be impleaded as party in the election petition. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on Manjit Kaur Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 784 wherein a similar argument raised, was considered FAO No.3952 of 2010 2 by this court and it was opined that all the contesting candidates are required to be impleaded in terms of Section 77 (a) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that Section 77 (a) of the Act provides that the candidates who contested election in various categories are required to be impleaded as party in an election petition. It would be sufficient to implead the contesting candidates in the category in which the election petitioner was one of the candidates as the result of the election petition as such is not going to effect the election of any of other candidate. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the prayer, made by the appellant in the election petition, filed by him shows that he had sought declaration to the effect that election be declared as null and void and consequently he be declared as elected member of Panchayat. In the election petition, respondent No.1 only impleaded the appellant as party. The election in the present case was held for nine posts of Panches. The issue, which is required to be considered by this court is very short, namely, as to whether the defeated candidate while challenging the election of another person is required to implead the candidates, who contested election in that category or all the persons who had contested election for various posts of Panches in that Gram Panchayat? Section 77 (a) of the Act, which is extracted below, provides for impleadment of parties in an election petition. “77. Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition- (a) where he, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that election petitioner is required to join as respondent in his election petition all the contesting candidates in case the prayer is for declaration of election of all FAO No.3952 of 2010 3 or any of the candidates as void and a further prayer has been made for declaring the petitioner therein as one of the elected candidate. In the present case, as noticed aforesaid the prayer of the appellant is to set aside the impugned order by the Tribunal. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the elected or contesting candidates of the categories other then those whose election was under challenge, would not be materially affected with the result of the election petition, hence, not required to be impleaded as party therein, cannot be accepted as such. On a plain reading of Section 77 (a) of the Act, it is evident that in case the prayer in the election petition is for declaration of result of all or any of the returned candidates as void and further relief has been claimed to declare the petitioner therein elected, all the contesting candidates are to be impleaded as parties. However, where further relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected candidate has not been made, only the returned candidates are required to be impleaded. It does not provide that only the category of the candidates contesting or returned to which the election petitioner belonged, are to be impleaded as parties. Once the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court is to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the provision of the statute. The court cannot add words in the statute unless a plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. It is only in these circumstances that the court can do some violence with the provisions of a statute to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction. The facts of the case in hand do not require this court to use tools for interpretation of statues, as the language of the provision is plain and simple. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Manjit Kaur’s case (supra) and FAO No. 5413 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Kaur Vs. Election Tribunal and others decided on 13.01.2011. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is accepted. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the election petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE FAO No.3952 of 2010 4 22.02.2011 sharmila