FAO No.6540 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 6540 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 Charanjit Kaur ...Appellant Versus Jaspal Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Patiala (for short “the Tribunal”) dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant on account of her failure to produce herself for cross-examination in spite of number of opportunities. Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 342 days has also been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was biased against the appellant. However, he did not dispute that 3-4 opportunities were afforded to enable the appellant to produce herself for cross-examination. He further submitted that biasness of the officer can be inferred from the fact that the order was passed on 07.10.2009, certified copy thereof was applied on 04.11.2009, which was prepared only on July 28, 2010, thereby depriving the appellant to avail of her remedies available under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”) immediately when the order was passed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Once it is not disputed that the appellant was afforded 3-4 opportunities to produce herself for cross-examination, the Tribunal was not obliged to keep the election petition pending indefinitely. It was required to be disposed of expeditiously, considering the fact that the term of the Panchayat is 5 years. FAO No.6540 of 2010 2 Even otherwise the petition filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was not maintainable, as the appellant had failed to implead all the contesting candidates as respondents in the petition considering the prayer in the election petition. Consequences of non-impleading of the respondents in terms of Section 77 of the Act have been provided under Section 80 thereof. For the aforesaid violation as well the petition was liable to be dismissed. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and consequently the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, considering the fact that certified copy of the order passed by the Tribunal on 07.10.2009 was applied by the appellant on 4.11.2009 and was prepared only on 28.7.2010, nearly 9 months after filing of the application, let a show cause notice be issued to the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Patiala for 31.03.2010 to explain as to why the application for supply of certified copy of the order in an election dispute was kept pending for so long. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 07.02.2011 sharmila