FAO No.126 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 126 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.03.2011 Daljit Singh ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar (for short “the Tribunal”) allowing the petition filed by respondent No.3, whereby election of the appellant to the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Village Jauns, Block Harsha Chhina, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, was set aside. Briefly, the facts as are available on record are, that the appellant contested election for the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Village Jauns, Block Harsha Chhina, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, which was held on May 26, 2008. Respondent No.3 having been prevented from contesting election, filed election petition seeking declaration that the appellant has been wrongly elected as Panch. The election petition having been allowed by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this court. No one has appeared for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the relevant record. The issue, which is required to be considered by this court is very short, namely, as to whether a candidate while challenging the election of another person is required to implead the candidates, who contested election in that category or all the persons who had contested election for various posts of Panches in that Gram Panchayat? Section 77 (a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”), which is extracted below, provides for impleadment of parties in an election petition. FAO No.126 of 2010 2 “77. Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition- (a) where he, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that election petitioner is required to join as respondent in his election petition all the contesting candidates in case the prayer is for declaration of election of all or any of the candidates as void and a further prayer has been made for declaring the petitioner therein as one of the elected candidate. In the present case, the election of the appellant was set aside even though the parties had not been impleaded in terms of Section 77 (a) of the Act. The contention of the respondent is that as the elected or contesting candidates of the categories other then those whose election was under challenge, would not be materially affected with the result of the election petition, hence, not required to be impleaded as party therein, cannot be accepted as such. On a plain reading of Section 77 (a) of the Act, it is evident that in case the prayer in the election petition is for declaration of result of all or any of the returned candidates as void and further relief has been claimed to declare the petitioner therein elected, all the contesting candidates are to be impleaded as parties. However, where further relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected candidate has not been made, only the returned candidates are required to be impleaded. It does not provide that only the category of the candidates contesting or returned to which the election petitioner belonged, are to be impleaded as parties. Once the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court is to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the provision of the statute. The court cannot add words in the statute unless a plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. It is only in these circumstances that FAO No.126 of 2010 3 the court can do some violence with the provisions of a statute to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction. The facts of the case in hand do not require this court to use tools for interpretation of statues, as the language of the provision is plain and simple. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Manjit Kaur Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 784, and FAO No. 5413 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Kaur Vs. Election Tribunal and others decided on 13.01.2011. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is accepted. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the election petition filed by respondent No.3 is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 01.03.2011 sharmila