FAO No.5866 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5866 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:16.09.2010. Ajaib Singh ...Appellant Versus Babu Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Chahal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1, 5 to 9, 14, 15 and 19. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against the order of Election Tribunal (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam), Block Lehra, District Sangrur [for short “Election Tribunal”] dated 26.08.2009 by which the election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of Babu Singh (respondent No.1), has been dismissed. The case set up by the appellant is that though he had polled 189 votes as against Babu Singh, who had polled 157 votes yet Babu Singh has been illegally declared as Panch of the Gram Panchayat of village Ramgarh Sadhuan. The learned Election Tribunal, while dismissing the election petition, has observed that the total votes polled were 1544, out of which 16 votes were declared cancelled. It has been FAO No.5866 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ****** observed that if the case of the appellant is accepted that he had polled 189 votes, then the total votes polled would rise to 1644 including the cancelled votes and if 100 votes are deducted, then it would come to 1544. It was thus, observed that there was a typographical error in the result of the appellant wherein it was mentioned as 189 instead of 89 and the appellant is taking undue advantage of the mistake. The learned Election Tribunal has also observed that the appellant has not mentioned total number of votes polled anywhere in the election petition, rather he is only claiming that he has polled 189 votes. The learned Election Tribunal, thus, found the claim of the appellant totally bogus and as such, the election petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Election Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred in which the only argument pressed is that despite securing 189 votes, the appellant has not been declared elected and the respondent No.1, who had secured 157 votes, has been declared elected. Interestingly, in the grounds of appeal also, the appellant has very conveniently avoided to mention total number of votes polled. However, in the reply filed by respondent No.1, the total number of votes polled has been clearly mentioned to be 1544, out of which 16 votes were cancelled. It is also mentioned that the total votes polled in favour of appellant were 89, who is taking advantage of a typographical error to claim the total votes polled in his favour to be 189. I have carefully considered the pleadings as well as the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and have found that the case set up by the appellant is totally frivolous inasmuch as he has not disclosed the total number of votes polled either in the election petition or in the grounds of appeal filed before this Court, from which it is apparent that there is a willful effort by the appellant to conceal the relevant facts from this Court. The reason is obvious because if the total number of votes polled is 1544 as held by the Election Tribunal, then the total votes allegedly secured by the appellant, i.e. 189, would further swell the total FAO No.5866 of 2009 (O&M) -3- ****** number of votes polled to 1628, besides 16 cancelled votes and the appellant would not be able to explain the 100 excess votes in the total votes polled. It is thus, clear that out of the total votes polled, the appellant had only secured 89 votes and not 189 votes and as such, he has not been declared elected by the Returning Officer. No other point has been raised. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. September 16, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE