FAO No.1460 of 2009 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1460 of 2009 Date of decision : 7.5.2009 Amritdeed Kaur ..Appellant. Vs. Sukhdev Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The order passed by Election Tribunal, Tarn Taran dated 16.2.2009 dismissing the election petition filed by appellant has been challenged in this appeal. In brief, the facts of the case are that election for the Gram Panchayat of village Dode, Block Bikhiwind, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran was held on 26.5.2008. There were 7 posts of Panches, out of which two posts were for General category, one for General Women, three for SC Men and one for SC Women. The appellant got 275 votes whereas Dalbir Kaur wife of Dilbag Singh (respondent No.9) secured 318 votes and was declared elected. The appellant filed Election Petition unde Section 76 read with Sections 89 and 108 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 challenging the election of Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.1) who has been elected as a Panch in the general category, on the ground that she had FAO No.1460 of 2009 -2 - contested from General Category and had secured more votes than him. The learned Election Tribunal found that the appellant and respondent No.9 had filed nomination papers, which are on record as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, in the category of General Women out of which one post was to be filled up. Since the appellant had secured less votes than respondent No.9, therefore, the respondent No.9 has been declared elected in the category of General Women. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Election Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal in which vide order dated 30.3.2009 record of the Election Tribunal was summoned. Sh.H.S.Baath, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that even if in the nomination paper Ex.P1, the appellant has mentioned her category as Woman, she is to be considered in the General Category because word `Woman' is not mentioned in the relevant column provided in the nomination paper (Ex.P1). I have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Nomination paper Ex.P1 pertains to the appellant whereas nomination paper Ex.P2 pertains to respondent No.9. In both the nomination papers Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 the word `Woman' category is mentioned showing the intention of the appellant as well as respondent No.9 that they were contesting the election in the category of General Woman and not in the General category as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel for the appellant in this regard. It appears that after loosing her election in the General category (Women) at the hands of respondent No.9, the appellant is trying to shift to General Category through the process of FAO No.1460 of 2009 -3 - election petition where the candidates who have been declared elected have secured less votes than her. I have also asked a pertinent question to the counsel for the appellant that who else have contested in the category of General Woman to which counsel for the appellant submits that except for the two candidates, namely, the appellant and respondent No.9, there is no other candidate who has contested the election in the General category of Woman. Thus, I find it to be unbelievable that appellant and respondent No.9 have contested the election in General Category and there was no candidate in the village who have contested the election in the category of General (Woman). Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 7.5.2009 JUDGE Meenu