Civil Revision No. 1675 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1675 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2009 Chhotu Ram Yadav ....Petitioner Versus Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rewari and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 19008-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed, order dated 11.8.2009 is recalled and the revision is restored to its original number. CR No. 1675 of 2006 This revision petition is directed against the impugned part of the order vide which while deciding the election petition, learned Election Tribunal has imposed costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), which have been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in his personal capacity. Respondent-election petitioner filed a petition to challenge the election of respondent No. 1, in which the returning officer was impleaded as respondent No. 2, however, before the notice could be Civil Revision No. 1675 of 2006 (O&M) -2- issued to respondent No. 3 (petitioner herein), he had retired from the service, therefore, nobody represented the petitioner in the Tribunal. After coming to know about the order imposing costs, the petitioner filed a review petition in his personal capacity, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in absence of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Tribunal could have not imposed costs in his personal capacity, especially when he was not served, having retired from the office. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was not open to the Tribunal to impose the costs on the returning officer, especially when he was not impleaded in his personal capacity and had retired. In case, any such costs were to be imposed, it was incumbent upon the Election Tribunal to have impleaded the petitioner in his personal capacity by name and given him an opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order against him. The impugned part of the order imposing costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) on the petitioner in his personal capacity is ordered to be quashed, while rest of the order is maintained. Revision disposed of. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 14, 2009 R.S.