IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7854 of 2009 Date of decision: 28th July, 2010 Balbir Singh … Petitioner Versus Additional Registrar (G), Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Surjit Singh Salar, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 7. Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate for respondent No.6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-Balbir Singh and respondent No.6-Balwinder Singh secured equal number of votes. The Returning Officer invoked Clause 5 of Appendix C Part II framed under Rule 23 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 and proceeded to decide the winner by a draw of lots. The petitioner was declared elected. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.6 filed an election petition. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangrur recounted the votes and came to a conclusion that out of 276 votes polled, four were invalid and the petitioner and respondent No.6, in the recounting also, got equal number of votes, thus, election of the petitioner was upheld. Respondent No.6 filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Civil Writ Petition No.7854 of 2009 Cooperative Societies, Patiala Division, Patiala, who again counted the votes and out of the four invalid votes, one was held to be valid in favour of respondent No.6, as the mark of vote was not on the symbol but was towards the name of the candidate. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala Division, Patiala returned the following finding: “After hearing the appellant and the respondent, the record in regard to the election produced by the society was seen. After seeing the vote which was casted in favour of the appellant and was cancelled by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangrur it was found that the mark which should have been on the election symbol rather has been on the side of the name of the appellant. From this, it is proved that the intention of the voter was to cast the vote in favour of Sh.Balwinder Singh appellant. As per the instructions issued by the election commission and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab such kind of vote cannot be cancelled. As such this vote has been correctly polled to the appellant. For this vote the appellant has got polled total of 24 votes and he is declared elected. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Court of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangrur is set-aside and the election of Sh.Balbir Singh – respondent No.3 as managing committee member is set- aside. Order is pronounced at the spot.” Nursing a grudge that being successful in the draw of lots and in the election petition, petitioner who was a winner, has been made a loser, petitioner preferred a revision petition, wherein a new version was coined. It was stated that the Secretary, Cooperative Societies, who was custodian of the votes, had tampered with the same and the vote of a candidate, namely Jagjit Singh who had got highest votes, after tampering has been counted in favour of respondent No.6. This factual aspect was rejected by the revisional authority. The revisional authority 2 Civil Writ Petition No.7854 of 2009 confined itself to validity of the vote, which was earlier declared invalid. The revisional authority held as under: “It was found that Balbir Singh polled 23 votes and Balwinder Singh Rs.No.5 polled 24 votes. One vote of Sh.Balwinder Singh which was declared invalid vote was examined and the same was found to be in favour of Sh.Balwinder Singh in view of the Division Bench judgment given by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.25068 dated 11.2.1997. This issue of remaining three disputed votes polled in favour or disfavour of other candidate is irrelevant as all of them has won by majority. The point of tempering of record raised by the Advocate for the petitioner is also not justified as each and every ballot paper has been signed by the returning officer. It has been established that Sh.Balwinder Singh got 24 votes in his favour. Whereas Sh.Balbir Singh got 23 votes. Therefore, undersigned find no reasons to dis-agree with the judgment given by the JRHS Patiala. So the present revision petition is dismissed. The case was reserved and has been written on 6.5.08. Parties be informed accordingly.” In the present writ petition, quashing of the order (Annexure P-3) dated 2nd March, 2009 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala Division, Patiala and affirmed by the revisional authority vide its order (Annexure P-4) dated 6th May, 2009 has been sought. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the revisional authority ought to have considered the submissions made on the facts of the case that there was a tampering with the votes. In this Court also it has been prayed that since tampering of the votes has taken place, therefore, the votes should be called in this Court and recounted. How many times the votes can be recounted ? This game must end somewhere. A writ Court cannot determine the disputed 3 Civil Writ Petition No.7854 of 2009 questions of fact. Before the appellate authority and the revisional authority, the core issue was determination of an invalid vote as a valid one. They have decided this issue against the petitioner after examining merits of the contentions advanced. A new argument can always be raised and the grievance can be kept alive forever, but the result of the election, some day, has to be accepted with grace. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of, without causing any interference. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 28, 2010 rps 4