C.W.P. No. 12840 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12840 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 03, 2008 Anita and others .....PETITIONERS Versus Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.M.S.Sindhu, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Mandeep S.Bedi, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 8. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioners, who are six in numbers out of eleven members Panchayat of Village Kahnuwan, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the election of respondent No.4 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioners that the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened for 18.7.2008. On that date, the petitioners were present but they were not permitted to enter into the meeting hall, and thereafter, by showing them as absent, the meeting was adjourned due to C.W.P. No. 12840 of 2008 -2- lack of quorum. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 19.7.2008 the second meeting was held without issuing any notice to the petitioners and in the said meeting, respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of the Village Gram Panchayat only by five members. In the written statements filed by the official as well as private respondents, it has been denied that no prior notice of the second meeting was issued to the petitioners. It is stated that when in spite of the valid notice, the petitioners did not attend the said meeting for which there was no quorum, respondent No.4 was elected by the members of the Panchayat, who were present in the said meeting. After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the disputed questions of facts raised in this writ petition and the preliminary objections raised by the respondents in their written statements, and further in view of the decision of this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), wherein it has held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under Section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of election petition. However, counsel for the petitioners submits that since the election petition was to be filed within 45 days from the date of election of the office of Sarpanch and within the said limitation, the petitioners had approached this Court and filed the present writ petition, therefore, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. C.W.P. No. 12840 of 2008 -3- Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, (1996) 6 SCC 199, the petitioners may be permitted to file election petition within three weeks from today and in case election petition is filed within three weeks, the same may be directed to be heard on merits by the Election Tribunal. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an election petition within three weeks under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No.4. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, if the election petition is filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of nine months. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 03, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE