IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11154 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.11.2008 Jeeto Bai ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl.A.G, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 5 and 7. Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.8 to 11. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J(ORAL) Petitioner, who contested the election of office of Panch of Village Gram Panchayat Talwara, Block Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana against one seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman), has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No.8-Satnam Kaur whose name has been notified as elected Panch of the said Gram Panchayat during the pendency of this petition against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). It is the case of the petitioner that after counting of votes, the petitioner was declared elected as Panch as she has secured 72 votes and the other two candidates namely Satnam Kaur and Gurmail Kaur, who also contested the election for the seat reserved for S.C Woman, were declared defeated as they have secured 44 and 24 votes respectively for the said post. It is further case of the petitioner that after declaration of the result, the Presiding Officer while tampering with the record wrongly declared Satnam Kaur as elected Panch against the said category by converting her votes from 41 to 44 votes and by decreasing the votes of the petitioner from 72 to 42 votes. Since disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition, C.W.P.No.11154 of 2008 #2# we are not inclined to entertain this petition as the petitioner has the remedy of filing election petition U/s 76 read with Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since he has filed this writ petition within the prescribed limit of 45 days against the impugned order, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and Others, (1996) 6, SCC, 199, the petitioner may be granted three weeks time to file the election petition with direction to Election Tribunal to decide that petition on merits. Counsel for the respondents have no objection if the election petition is filed within three weeks by the petitioner. In view of the above, we dismiss this petition relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of election petition. He may file election petition within three weeks under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No.8. In case the election petition is filed within three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to decide the same on merits within a period of six months from today. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 07, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE