FAO No. 1816 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CM No8879-CII of 2010 and FAO No. 1816 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on Sept 21,2010. Kishan Lal --Appellant vs. Kuljit Singh and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms.Amandeep Soni,Advocate,for the applicant/appellant Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, CM No.8879-CII of 2010 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) for condonation of delay of 129 days in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was given to which reply has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application, I am of the view that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/appellant for his inability to file the appeal in time. Hence, I allow the present application and condone the delay. FAO No.1816 of 2010 Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order passed by FAO No. 1816 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Jalandhar, dated 26.10.2009, whereby election petition filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed, election of the appellant is set aside and respondent No.1. has been declared to have been elected in his place as Panch. In short, election for constituting Gram Panchayat Unghi was held on 26.5.2008 in which the appellant was elected as Panch. This Panchayat comprises of 9 Panches, out of which three posts were meant for General Category, two posts for Lady Panches, three posts for Scheduled Caste (Male) and one post for Scheduled Caste (Female) Category. The appellant had contested in the General Category and was elected. His election is challenged by respondent No.1. Kuljit Singh on the ground that the appellant was fined Rs.50/- in a case registered against him vide FIR No.431 dated 23.12.2001 under Section 13/3/67 of the Gambling Act,1867 by the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. and further to undergo imprisonment for three days, in case of default to pay the fine. It was alleged that a person of criminal background who has been convicted under the Gambling Act was unqualified for contesting the election of Panch in view of Section 208 (c) of the Panjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, Act No.9 of 1994). The learned Tribunal allowed the election petition on the ground that conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the Gambling Act was within the definition of moral turpitude and as such, this case is fully covered under Section 208 (c) of Act No.9 of 1994. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that firstly, conviction for a fine of Rs.50/- under the Gambling Act does not involve FAO No. 1816 of 2010 (O&M) 3 moral turpitude and secondly, even if it is presumed to be so, the election petition filed under Section 208 of Act No.9 of 1994 was not maintainable. It is submitted that after enactment of Act No.9 of 1994, the State Government had enacted the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, Act No.19 of 1994) in which disqualifications were provided under Section 11. It is further submitted that since Act No.19 of 1994 is a legislation subsequent to Act No.9 of 1994, therefore, provisions of Act No.19 of 1994 would prevail over and above Act No.9 of 1994 until and unless the provisions are consistent in both the Acts. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi & Ors AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2088. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that offence under the Gambling Act, shocks the conscious of the society and comes within the ambit of moral turpitude and is fully covered by the provisions of Act No.9 of 1994. However, he could not refer to any judgment to the contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Som Lal (supra). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to succeed on the short ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Som Lal's Case (Supra), provisions of Act No. 9 of 1994 would not be applicable over and above the provisions of Act No.19 of 1994 unless and until, the provisions in both the Acts are consistent. Undisputedly, there is no provision in Act No.19 of 1994 similar to that of Section 208 (c) of Act No.9 of 1994, therefore, the said provision is not available to the election petitioner to challenge the election FAO No. 1816 of 2010 (O&M) 4 of a returned candidate. Thus, in view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal is set aside. No costs. Sept 21,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge