FAO No.5606 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on February 10,2010. Ranjit Kaur Appellant vs. Harjinder Kaur and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman,Advocate,for the appellant Ms.Anu Pal,Advocate,for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Election Tribunal, Amritsar, whereby election petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 against the appellant has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that meeting for the election of Sarpanch of Panchayat of nine members was held on 2.8.2008 which could not materalise as none of the Panch attended the meeting which was adjourned to 06.8.2008. On the adjourned date, all the nine members were present. There were three groups of having equal number of votes in their favour, Meaning thereby that one member proposed name of the candidate and other members seconded him. In this background, the Returning Officer held draw of lots in which appellant got one extra vote and was declared elected. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 challenged the FAO No.5606 of 2009 (O&M) 2 election of the appellant by way of filing an election petition on the ground that no meeting was held on 06.8.2008 and it was adjourned to 8.8.2008. On this plea, election of the appellant was set aside by the Tribunal. At the very out set, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the record of the case which was summoned by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2009 and submitted that the election petition is defective in law as it is not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short,'the Act') and should have been dismissed by the Election Tribunal in view of Section 80 of the Act. It is also submitted that all the pages of the election petition are not signed and attested by the election petitioner nor the copy supplied to the appellant has been signed and attested. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has argued that the objection is hypothetical and submits that the election petition has been duly signed and verified by the election petitioner, though all the pages of the election petition may not have been signed or attested. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant provisions of law, namely Sections 76 and 80 of the Act, which are reproduced below:- “Sec 76.Presentation of petition.- (1)An election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub section (1) of Section 89 to the Election Tribunal by any candidate to such election or by any elector within a period of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and there are different dates of their election, then the later of these dates shall be taken into account for this FAO No.5606 of 2009 (O&M) 3 purpose. (2)Every Election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof, as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the petition. Sec. 80 Trial of Election petition.- (1)The Election Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 76 or section 77 or section 103. (2) Where more than one election petitions are presented to the election Tribunal in respect of the same matter, the Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal, may, in his discretion, try them separately or in one or more groups. (3) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the election Tribunal within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial of the election petition and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the Election Tribunal, be entitled to be joined as a respondent. (4) The Election Tribunal may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise, as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner, as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the fact of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice which has not been previously alleged in the petition. (5) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of the trial be continued FAO No.5606 of 2009 (O&M) 4 from day to day until the conclusion, unless the Election Tribunal finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for a reasons to be recorded in writing. (6)Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and every endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the election Tribunal for trial”. Section 76 (2) categorically provides that the election petition has to be signed and attested by the election petitioner and copies supplied to the respondents therein are also to be signed and attested by the election petitioner under his signatures. In the present case, admittedly, neither the election petition is signed and attested on all pages nor copies supplied to the appellant were signed and attested by the election petitioner. In view of this legal short coming, the election petition deserves to be dismissed in view of Section 80 of the Act, which categorically provides that the Election Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 76. Since there is no dispute that the election petition is not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Section 76 of the Act, therefore, there is no alternative but to dismiss the election petition itself. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and the order of Election Tribunal is hereby set aside, as the election petition being dismissed. February 10,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge FAO No.5606 of 2009 (O&M) 5