In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) F.A.O. No.3719 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:28.7.2011 Gurmail Kaur .....Appellant v. Manjit Kaur and others .....Respondents .... (2) F.A.O. No.3720 of 2009 ..... Kewal Singh .....Appellant v. Amrik Singh and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta and Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. F.A.O. No.3719 of 2009 & F.A.O. No.3720 of 2009 [2] This order will dispose of FAO No.3719 of 2009 filed by Gurmail Kaur and FAO No.3720 of 2009 filed by Kewal Singh. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 12.12.2008 dated 12.6.2009 (Annexures-P.4 and P.5) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer (Election Tribunal), Bathinda (for short `the Election Tribunal'), whereby Election Petition filed by the respondent No.1-Manjit Kaur challenging the election of Gurmail Kaur (appellant in FAO No.3719 of 2009) as Member Panchayat of Village Dialpura Bhaika, Tehsil and District Bathinda was allowed and election of Gurmail Kaur as Member Panchayat was quashed. Similarly, election petition filed by respondent No.1- Amrik Singh challenging the election of Kewal Singh (appellant in FAO No.3720 of 3720) as Member Panchayat of Village Dialpura Bhaika, Tehsil and District Bathinda was allowed and election of Kewal Singh as Member Panchayat was quashed. I have heard Mr. P.K. Gupta and Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocates appearing for the appellants and Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate, appearing for respondents and have gone through the records of the case. The only reason for setting aside the election of the appellants is that the person who has proposed the name of the appellants and the person who was a covering candidate have denied their signatures on the nomination form. I have gone through the documents (Ex.PW-1). A perusal of this document shows that signatures/thumb impression of both the persons i.e. Proposer Ram Singh and covering candidate Iqbal Singh on the original F.A.O. No.3719 of 2009 & F.A.O. No.3720 of 2009 [3] nomination paper (Ex.PW.1) are forged. There was no dispute at the time of filing of nomination papers nor any objection in this regard had been raised by the Officer In-charge, who had accepted the nomination papers. I am of the considered view that later on said objection cannot be raised as the persons who have introduced the candidate may back out or can be purchased by the other side. Otherwise, also these persons are illiterate and rustic villagers, who do not understand the niceties of the Court. It appears that Ram Singh, Proposer and Iqbal Singh, covering candidate have been put to cross-examination by the Expert, who have been examined on behalf of the respondents. Once the elections are over and there is no dispute regarding the identity of the appellants, it cannot be said that the signatures of the covering candidate or that of the person who has introduced the candidate are forged or fake. Otherwise, also the appellants have got more number of votes than the respondents. For the reasons stated above, I do not agree with the findings recorded by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal and these orders are bound to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. July 28, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*