IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13184 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 14.11.2008 Nirmala and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Punjab State Election Commission and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondents No.5 to 7. Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. K.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.8. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No.7 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Paharipur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, on the ground that she was not declared as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat, therefore, she was not eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch. CWP No. 13184 of 2008 -2- Separate written statements on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 have been filed in court today. The same are taken on record and copies thereof have been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners. In the written statement, filed by respondent No.2, it has been specifically stated that respondent No.7 was duly elected as Panch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat and thereafter, her name was notified and she was permitted to contest the election of the Sarpanch, being a Panch of the Gram Panchayat. After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the disputed questions of facts in the written statement, raised by respondent No.2 and in view of decision of this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), wherein it has been held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of election petition. However, counsel for the petitioners further submits that since immediately after the election of the office of Sarpanch on 26.7.2008, the petitioners had filed this petition on 28.7.2008 i.e. within the limitation prescribed for filing election petition, therefore, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula CWP No. 13184 of 2008 -3- Hanumayamma and others, (1996) 6 SCC 199, they may be permitted to file election petition within three weeks from today and in case election petition is filed within three weeks, the same may be directed to be heard on merits by the Election Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection, if the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted. In view of above, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an election petition under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act, within a period of three weeks from today, challenging the election of respondent No.7. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If the election petition is filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to entertain and decide the same on merits, expeditiously. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 14, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE