FAO No.359 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.359 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:18.11.2010. Baljinder Kaur alias Balwinder Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus The Election Tribunal (ADC), Muktsar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Girdhar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. I.S.Mann, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Election Tribunal (ADC), Muktsar [for short “Election Tribunal”] by which the election petition filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 challenging the election of appellant No.1 Baljinder Kaur alias Balwinder Kaur to the post of Sarpanch, has been allowed. The brief facts of the case are that 7 members' Panchayat of village Jagat Singh Wala was constituted by way of election held on 26.05.2008. Thereafter, the first meeting was convened on 16.07.2008 in the Primary School of the village for the purpose of electing the Sarpanch. In the said meeting, allegedly, 4 Panches came present out of the 7 members and due to lack of quorum, the said meeting failed and it was re- scheduled for 22.07.2008. In the adjourned meeting, 3 Panches came present, out of whom, appellant No.1 was elected as Sarpanch. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 challenged the election of appellant No.1, inter alia, on the ground that no meeting was held on 22.07.2008 in the school premises of the village and that the appellants had indulged in corrupt FAO No.359 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** practices. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of Jasvir Kaur (respondent No.2) recorded by the Election Tribunal, which reads thus: - “It is correct that we filed a writ in this regard in the High Court which was dismissed. I do not know as to when the writ was dismissed. It is correct that my writ was dismissed prior to the filing of this petition. Baljinder Kaur never stated that she has become a Panch and as such nobody can prevent her from becoming Sarpanch. It is correct that the first meeting was held on 16.07.2008, second meeting was held on 22.07.2008. Baljinder Kaur, Balvir Singh and Gurjinder Singh had come present. I submitted applications regarding wrong election. The copies of those may be with me. I do not know as to when the copy of the proceeding dated 22.07.2008 was obtained. This copy is Exh.P3, which is produced by me. I do not know as to whether the affidavit was obtained from the other petitioners on the same day when the application mark A was given or it was obtained on some other day. I submitted applications in anticipation of wrong election, the copies are with me but I have not brought today. The meeting dated 16.07.2008 and meeting dated 22.07.2008 was held in the School of village. It is wrong that I have filed the petition without any reason. ROAC Sd/- Election Tribunal (ADC) RTI/Jasvir Kaur Muktsar. 20.10.09” FAO No.359 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** He further submits that the learned Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition only on a doubt and not on the basis of a finding recorded on the appreciation of evidence. In this regard, he refers to the finding of the Election Tribunal, which reads as under: - “The perusal of evidence placed on record and the statements of all the witnesses reveals that there are 7 Panches in Gram Panchayat Jagat Singh Wala. The first meeting for election of Sarpanch was convened on 16.07.2008 at Primary School Jagat Singh Wala. However, in the said meeting only 4 Panches were present. Therefore, the same was adjourned by the presiding officer due to lack of quorum. Thereafter, the meeting was again convened on 22.07.2008. The meeting was attended by 3 Panches and they elected respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jagat Singh Wala. The 4 Panches who have been shown as the absentee in this meeting are the ones who had attended the first meeting convened on 16.07.2008. Thereafter, the same 4 Panches filed this election petition. This creates a prima facie doubt regarding the manner in which proceeding was conducted on 22.07.2008. Therefore, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.” It is, thus, submitted that the learned Election Tribunal has committed a patent error of law in not appreciating the evidence much-less the admission of Jasvir Kaur, who is one of the election petitioners, who had categorically admitted that the second meeting was held in the school of the village where all the 3 Panches, namely Baljinder Kaur, Balvir Singh and Gurjinder Singh, came present. Thus, it is incorrect that the FAO No.359 of 2010 (O&M) -4- ****** meeting was held in a clandestine manner at a place other than the school for the purpose of election of Baljinder Kaur (appellant No.1). Moreover, the learned Election Tribunal should not have set aside the election of an elected member only on the basis of a doubt. The learned Election Tribunal is required to record a considered finding of fact after evaluation of the evidence available on record. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal merits success and as such, the same is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Election Tribunal is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. November 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE