FAO No.5195 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5195 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:27.10.2010. Baldev Singh ...Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. ADS Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned District Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur dated 07.08.2009 by which election petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In brief, election of the 5 members' Panchayat of village Bacho-ke-theh, tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur was held on 26.5.2008 in which two posts were meant for General (Male) category, two for General (Woman) category and one for Scheduled Caste category. In the said election, total 19 candidates had contested. According to the appellant, he was the lone candidate in the Scheduled Caste category and should have been elected unopposed, but the nomination paper of Jaswant Singh (respondent No.1 herein), who had contested in the General category, was wrongly converted into the Schedule Caste category and has been declared elected. The learned Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition by observing that “it is evident that Jaswant Singh – respondent No.2 filed a FAO No.5195 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ****** Scheduled Caste certificate along with prescribed security of `50/- meant for such candidates and he filed his nomination as Member Panchayat (Scheduled Caste) for village Bacho-ke-theh, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur and respondent No.1, who was the Presiding Officer for those elections, validly declared him elected as a Scheduled Caste Member Panchayat.” Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 07.08.2009 by which the election petition has been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the present election petition was not in accordance with law and should have been dismissed because the election petitioner/appellant had made both the prayers of setting aside of the election of respondent No.1 and also for declaring himself to be elected in his place and has not impleaded all the contesting candidates as well as all the returned candidates as required under Section 77 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 [for short “the Act”]. He further submits that Section 80 of the Act provides that if there is a violation of Section 76 or Section 77 of Section 103 of the Act, then the election petition has to be dismissed and the result has to be declared in terms of Section 87 of the Act. However, learned counsel for the appellant, could not challenge the argument raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1 except for arguing that this plea was not raised before the learned Election Tribunal. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. Admittedly, the election petitioner/appellant had made both prayers of setting aside of the election of respondent No.1 and himself to be declared elected in his place and has neither impleaded all the contesting candidates nor all the five returned candidates as party in the election petition. Therefore, in my view, the election petition was inherently bad as it was offending Section 80 of the Act. Thus, besides agreeing with the view taken by the learned Election Tribunal dismissing FAO No.5195 of 2009 (O&M) -3- ****** the election petition on merits, I am also of the view that the election petition is bad in law being contrary to the provisions of Section 80 of the Act and as such, this appeal as well as the election petition is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. October 27, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE