IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13389 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 15.09.2008 Rajbir Kaur and others .... PETITIONERS Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners, who are 3 Panches in the 5 Member Gram Panchayat of Village Phulke, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No.4 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, on the ground that she was declared elected without the support of majority of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, with a further direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to conduct the fresh election of the office of Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, CWP No. 13389 of 2008 -2- under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner. In this petition, it has been alleged that in the meeting held on 18.7.2008, which was convened under Section 13-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, all the 5 members of the Gram Panchayat were present. In the said meeting, the petitioners, who were in majority, proposed the name of Rajbir Kaur (petitioner No.1) as Sarpanch. Despite the majority of Panches in favour of petitioner No.1, she was not declared elected as Sarpanch and the meeting was illegally adjourned to 20.7.2008. On 20.7.2008, again all the petitioners were present in the meeting and supported the candidature of Rajbir Kaur as Sarpanch. It is the case of the petitioners that in the said meeting, the Presiding Officer declared Rajbir Kaur elected as Sarpanch for having majority of 3 Members of the Gram Panchayat. It is the further case of the petitioners that after the election of petitioner No.1 as Sarpanch, no certificate was issued to her by the Returning Officer and subsequently, respondent No.4 was illegally declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, at the instance of the local MLA. Pursuant to the notice issued, respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 and respondent No.4 filed separate written statements. In both the written statements, it has been stated that in the meeting held on 20.7.2008, respondent No.4 was unanimously elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and all the 3 petitioners not only participated in that meeting, but also signed the decision of the unanimous election of respondent No.4 as CWP No. 13389 of 2008 -3- Sarpanch. Copy of the proceedings held on 20.7.2008 has been annexed as Annexure R-1. It has been specifically denied that name of Rajbir Kaur (petitioner No.1) was ever supported by any of the Panch of the Gram Panchayat or she was proposed for the office of Sarpanch. It has been stated in the written statements that the petitioners have intentionally and willfully concealed the material facts from this Court regarding the unanimous election of respondent No.4 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Faced with the true facts, as disclosed in the written statements, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have changed one page of the proceeding book, showing respondent No.4 to be elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, instead of petitioner No.1. The original proceeding book has been produced in the Court by the State Counsel. A perusal of the same shows that no page of the proceeding book has been changed, as alleged by the petitioners. The proceedings of the meeting held on 20.7.2008 have been written on 4 pages in continuation and at 2 places, these proceedings bear the signatures of the petitioners. After going through the original proceeding book, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have filed this petition by concealing the material facts and by setting up a false and fabricated story that in the meeting held on 20.7.2008, petitioner No.1 was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. CWP No. 13389 of 2008 -4- Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 15, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE