FAO No. 1172 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1172 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 Akbar Singh ...Appellant Versus Bikkar Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parvesh Sachdeva, Advocate for Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Zira accepting the election petition filed by respondent No.1, setting aside the election of the appellant as Panch of Gram Panchayat village Ghuriana, Block Abohar, District Ferozepur. Along with the appeal, an application has also been filed seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing thereof. As is evident from the impugned order, initially the appellant secured 49 votes, whereas respondent No.1 secured 46 votes. However, on re-counting, the appellant was found to have secured only 49 votes, whereas respondent No.1 was found to have secured 53 votes, as 7 votes earlier rejected, were found to have been polled in favour of respondent No.1. This court summoned the record of the election, which was produced in the court on 4.4.2011. After perusing the 7 rejected votes, which were found by the Tribunal to have been polled in favour of respondent No.1 and on re-counting the following order was passed:- FAO No. 1172 of 2011 2 “The record produced by the learned State counsel, especially the ballot papers were perused. Two votes bearing Sr. No.001800 and 001034 were clearly found to be polled in favour Bikar Singh. In Sr. No. 001639, 000095, 001780, 001638, stamp was primarily in the column of Bikar Singh but it was over lapping the lines in between the two columns. In Sr. No.001728, stamp was almost on the middle portion of the two columns where dividing lines are there. In Sr. No.001638 and 001639 the stamp was also on the back portion of column of Raj Singh. Record has been released and handed over back to the learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to address arguments on the issue as to whether the votes in which the stamp is partially on the middle line though primarily within the column of one of the candidates are to be rejected. Adjourned to 19.4.2011.” A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that two votes were clearly found to have been polled in favour of Bikkar Singh. Out of four other votes two were found over lapping the lines in between the two columns, though primarily in the column of Bikkar Singh. Two votes were having been stamped even on the back side of the ballot paper. Though, there was a stamp on the front side of column of Bikkar Singh, even if these two votes are excluded in other two votes there was small over lapping on the middle line though primarily the stamp is in the column of Bikkar Singh. These two votes have to be considered as valid votes in terms of the illustrations of valid and invalid votes provided for in a booklet, titled as ‘Booklet of Posted and Ordinary Valid and Invalid Ballot Papers’ at pages 18 and 22, regarding valid votes. If four votes are considered as valid votes having been polled in favour of respondent No.1-Bikkar Singh, which were wrongly rejected at the time of first counting of votes, respondent N o.1 secured 50 votes i.e. one more than the votes secured by the appellant, namely 49. FAO No. 1172 of 2011 3 Considering the aforesaid result after re-counting and re- checking of the votes, though number of votes polled in favour of respondent No.1 differs as compared to what has been mentioned by the Election Tribunal in its order, still the number of votes polled in favour of respondent No.1 being more than the votes polled in favour of the appellant. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in accepting the election petition filed by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and consequently the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 19.04.2011 sharmila