FAO No.3721 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3721 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 Kamla Devi ...Appellant Versus Surinder Kumari and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Election Tribunal, Dasuya (for short “the Tribunal”) dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, challenging the election of respondent No.1 to the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Gaunspur, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Briefly, the facts as are available on record are, that the appellant contested election for the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Gaunspur, which was held on May 26, 2008. She having not been declared successful, filed election petition seeking declaration that Surinder Kumari wife of Jai Singh has been wrongly elected as Panch in the General Women category and also for declaring her as winning candidate. The election petition having been dismissed by the Tribunal, the order has been challenged before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order vide which the Tribunal has dismissed the election petition suffers from legal infirmity whereby her petition has been dismissed. He submitted that the appellant in the present case had contested election only in the FAO No.3721 of 2010 2 category of women, she in her petition had impleaded all the candidates who had contested election in the women category. Section 77 (a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) provides that the candidates who contested election in various categories are required to be impleaded as party in an election petition. It would be sufficient to implead the contesting candidates in the category in which the election petitioner was one of the candidate as the result of the election petition as such is not going to effect the election of any of other candidate. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that Section 77 (a) of the Act in clear terms provides that the election petitioner is required to join in his petition, all the contesting candidates in case a declaration has been sought that election of all or any of the returned candidates is void. The Section does not provide that only the candidates who contested election in a particular category are to be impleaded as party in the election petition. He further submitted that her candidature for election in the Women category is also liable to be rejected as she never contested for the same. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on Manjit Kaur Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 784 wherein a similar argument raised, was considered by this court and it was opined that all the contesting candidates are required to be impleaded as respondents in the election petition in terms of Section 77 (a) of the Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the prayer, made by the appellant in the election petition, filed by her shows that she had sought declaration to the effect that election of Surinder Kumari wife of Jai Singh as Panch of the Member Gram Panchayat be declared as null and void and subsequently the appellant be declared as elected member of Panchayat in Women General category after considering her candidature in the Women category. In the election petition the parties impleaded were merely the candidates, who according to the appellant, had contested the election for the seats reserved for Women category. The issue, which is required to be considered by this court is very short, namely, as to whether the defeated candidate while challenging the election of another person in his/her category is required to implead the FAO No.3721 of 2010 3 candidates, who contested election in that category or all the persons who had contested election for various posts of Panches in that Gram Panchayat? Section 77 (a) of the Act, which is extracted below, provides for impleadment of parties in an election petition. “77. Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition- (a) where he, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that election petitioner is required to join as respondent in his election petition all the contesting candidates in case the prayer is for declaration of election of all or any of the candidates as void and a further prayer has been made for declaring the petitioner therein as one of the elected candidate. In the present case, as noticed aforesaid the prayer of the appellant was to declare the election of Surinder Kumari wife of Jai Singh as void against the seat reserved for Women category and also for declaring her an elected Panch. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the elected or contesting candidates of the categories other then those whose election was under challenge, would not be materially affected with the result of the election petition, hence, not required to be impleaded as party therein, cannot be accepted as such. On a plain reading of Section 77 (a) of the Act, it is evident that in case the prayer in the election petition is for declaration of result of all or any of the returned candidates as void and further relief has been claimed to declare the petitioner therein elected, all the contesting candidates are to be impleaded as parties. However, where further relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected candidate has not been made, only the returned candidates are required to be impleaded. It does not provide that only the category of the candidates contesting or FAO No.3721 of 2010 4 returned to which the election petitioner belonged, are to be impleaded as parties. Once the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court is to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the provision of the statute. The court cannot add words in the statute unless a plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. It is only in these circumstances that the court can do some violence with the provisions of a statute to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction. The facts of the case in hand do not require this court to use tools for interpretation of statues, as the language of the provision is plain and simple. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Manjit Kaur (supra), FAO No.5413 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Kaur Vs. Election Tribunal and others decided on 13.01.2011 and FAO No.3292 of 2010, decided on 24.2.2011 titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Rana Singh and others. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 19.04.2011 sharmila