IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16885 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 24.09.2008 Lakhvir Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the election of Wards No.1 to 3, 5, 7 to 11 of Nagar Panchayat, Badhni Kalan, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, being null and void, as the entire election has taken place in clear cut violation of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 and the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The petitioners are residents of Badhni Kalan and contested the elections of Nagar Panchayat from Wards No.1 to 3, 5, 7 to 11, as candidates of Joint Front. It is alleged that the Shiromani Akali Dal (hereinafter referred to as `the SAD'), whose candidates also contested the elections from these Wards, did not allow the petitioners to contest the elections in a free and fair manner. It is further alleged that before the elections, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation to the State CWP No. 16885 of 2008 -2- Election Commission to the effect that the candidates of SAD were threatening them with dire consequences, if they raise their voice against them. Despite the said representation, no action was taken by the official respondents and the bad elements of SAD with the help of the Police captured the booths of all the Wards of Nagar Panchayat, Badhni Kalan. It is alleged that due to the large scale booth capturing, election of Wards No.4 and 6 were countermanded. It is further alleged that as far as the remaining wards are concerned, neither the petitioners nor their polling agents and the voters of the Wards were permitted to enter the booths and to cast their votes. With these allegations of booth capturing, the petitioners allege that elections for the aforesaid Wards, which were in gross violation of the provisions of the Act, are liable to be declared as null and void and respondents be directed to hold fresh elections of those Wards. It is undisputed that election result of the aforesaid Wards has been declared and the petitioners, who contested in the aforesaid Wards, have been defeated. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the writ petition, we are of the opinion that after declaration of the result of the elections, election of the returned candidate can be questioned only by filing election petition under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act, on the ground of any irregularity or corrupt practice or on the ground of booth capturing and not permitting the voters to cast their votes. CWP No. 16885 of 2008 -3- However, learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan, AIR 1999 (S.C.) 1723, a Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in Prithvi Raj v. State Election Commission, Punjab & others, AIR 2007 (P & H) 178, a Full Bench decision of this Court in Lal Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 (P & H) 1, and decisions of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (2) PLR 105 and in Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 (P & H) 197, submits that in spite of the fact that the alternative remedy of election petition is available to the petitioners, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can set aside the election of a returned candidate. While referring to para 34 of the Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in Prithvi Raj's case (supra), learned counsel submits that it has been held that the High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs in the matters pertaining to elections. After going through the aforesaid judgments, we are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is well settled, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa-cum-Returning Officer, AIR 1985 SC 1746, that after the declaration of the result, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an election petition. Even the Constitutional Bench of this Court in Prithvi Raj's case (supra) has clearly held that the High Court will not exercise its power of judicial review, after CWP No. 16885 of 2008 -4- conclusion of the election and in that situation, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file election petition, challenging the election of the returned candidate. It has been observed that only to a limited extent, the power of judicial review is available, when some appropriate writ, order or direction required to be issued to further the cause of any election, but in any manner, such a petition does not call into question an election. A petition seeking an expeditious conclusion of an election or filed with the object of facilitating the conduct of an election could be entertained as it would not be a cause, calling into question an election of the returned candidate. But whenever an aggrieved person wants to question the election of the returned candidate, the only remedy available for him is to file an election petition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, where the election of the aforesaid Wards of Nagar Panchayat, Badhni Kalan, has already taken place and results have been declared, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of election petition, challenging the election of the returned candidates, in accordance with law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 24, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE