FAO No. 3905 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3905 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.2.2011 Rattan Singh Panch and others ... Appellants vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. C. L. Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate, for respondents no. 2 to 5. Rajesh Bindal, J. Having failed before the Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in an election petition challenging the election of respondent no. 2 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dakoha, Block Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, the order is impugned in the present appeal by the majority of the panches. Briefly the facts are that the election for the Gram Panchayat Dakoha, was held. It consisted of nine panches belonging to different categories. The meeting for the election of Sarpanch was called for 18.7.2008. However, the same was adjourned allegedly on account of lack of coram. Next meeting was fixed on 19.7.2008 when respondent no.2 Harjinder Singh was declared elected as Sarpanch with the support of three other members, only four panches out of nine having attended the meeting. The appellants, who were five in number filed election petition, the same having been dismissed, they are now before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case in hand is an glaring example of highhandedness in the conduct of elections of panchayats in the Punjab where the majority panches were not even permitted to participate in the process of election of Sarpanch merely because they belonged to a party not in power in the State and as against FAO No. 3905 of 2010 (2) that a Sarpanch belonging to the party in power in the State though in minority was declared elected. It was submitted that when it was found by the authorities that their party will not be able to elect their representative as Sarpanch, appellant no. 1 who belonged to the opposite party was kidnapped on 17.7.2008 so that he may not be able to attend the meeting convened for the election of Sarpanch on 18.7.2008. On that day four other appellants were not even permitted to participate in the election process. The meeting had to be adjourned on account of lack of coram. Notice for the adjourned meeting was issued but it was not served on appellant no. 1 as he was not at home still the adjourned meeting was held on 19.7.2008 and again five panches out of nine were not permitted to participate in the meeting. Only four panches belonging to the ruling party were present in the meeting and they elected respondent no. 2 Harjinder Singh as the Sarpanch of the village. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the plea was sought to be raised by the respondents that the appellants were not together from the very beginning is falsified from the fact that immediately after the election, Civil Writ Petition No. 14430 of 2008 Ratan Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others was filed in this court challenging the election in which all the five appellants were the petitioners. Thereafter, even in the election petition filed, all had joined together. In a democratic set up, the party in majority is always entitled to chose its leader but in the present case, the minority party has been permitted to do so. Prayer is for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and for a direction to hold fresh election of Sarpanch. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 argued that there was no irregularity committed in the election of Sarpanch which was held on 19.7.2008. It is sweet will of any elected member of the panchayat to attend or not to attend the meeting. No one can be forced to attend the meeting. It is wrong to alleged that the appellants were belonging to Congress Party. Though four of them have their affiliation with the Congress Party but one of them is belonging to Akali Party, but an anti group. In fact, they could not take a decision as to who would be the leader. It is for this reason that they did not participate in both the meetings. First meeting was allegedly adjourned on account of lack of coram. However, in FAO No. 3905 of 2010 (3) the second meeting, four members being present they were legally entitled to elect one of them as Sarpanch. There being no illegality in the process of election, the election petition filed by the appellants was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The undisputed facts are that the Gram Panchayat consists of nine panches. The Sarpanch belongs to a group of four panches whereas the other group with five panches is in court challenging the election of Sarpanch belonging to minority group. The manner in which the election of Sarpanch has been conducted and a member belonging to minority group has been elected as Sarpanch cannot be justified under any circumstances in a democratic set up. This is not a case in isolation where this type of mechanism has been applied. Wherever elected panches belonging to ruling party were in minority, ways and means were devised to deprive the members in majority to elect a Sarpanch belonging to minority group. As a result the people in Gram Panchayats were not ruled by the persons to whom the voters sought to elect their leader rather by the persons who were in minority. The case in hand is also one of such cases. It is not in dispute that the Sarpanch was elected with the support of only three other members in the panchayat consisting of nine panches. Whereas the majority group of five panches was compelled to indulge in avoidable litigation and the result of which was that the minority group had been able to rule the panchayat for half of the term. Argument sought to be raised by respondent no. 2 to 5 that it was on their own that the appellants did not attend the meeting is merely to be noticed and rejected being misconceived. Once the appellants knew that they are in majority and will elect one of them as Sarpanch it cannot be imagined that they will not attend the meeting for election of Sarpanch. Under the circumstances, their contention that on both the occasions they were prevented from even entering the place of meeting cannot be said to be not well founded. Another contention raised by the respondents that the appellants had not been able to elect any one of them as their leader and for this reason they did not allow the meeting for election of Sarpanch is FAO No. 3905 of 2010 (4) falsified from the fact that all of them together had filed writ petition in this court and thereafter filed election petition which clearly shows that they were altogether. If they are five in number, their participation in the process of election of Sarpanch would have materially affected the result thereof. In my considered opinion the conduct of election of Sarpanch in the present case is not fair and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and consequently accepting the election petition, the election of respondent no. 2 Harjinder Singh as Sarpanch is set aside and the competent authority is directed to conduct fresh election of Sarpanch within three months of the submission of a copy of the order. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 23.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge