FAO No. 931 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 931 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.2.2011 Kartaro Devi and others .. Appellants v. Jeet Ram and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. S. Khaira, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The case in hand is an example of the fact as to how the election can be manipulated. Four out of five Panches are before this Court challenging the dismissal of their election petition by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, `the Tribunal') challenging the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch, who was alone in the Gram Panchayat consisting of five Panches. Briefly, the facts are that election for Gram Panchayat, Village Bhangwan, Block Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was held on 26.5.2008. Meeting for election of Sarpanch was held on 18.7.2008. However, the same was adjourned allegedly for the reason that none of the elected Panches was present. The adjourned meeting was held on 20.7.2008, in which respondent No. 1, being the only Panch present out of total five, was declared elected as Sarpanch. The appellants filed election petition alleging irregularities in the meeting held. However, the Tribunal dismissed the same. It is this order of the Tribunal which is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the result of FAO No. 931 of 2010 [2] manipulation in the election process is that in the Gram Panchayat consisting of five Panches, four Panches are sitting on one side, whereas a single Panch having support from none else, was declared elected as Sarpanch in a clandestine manner. After the election of Panches of Gram Panchayat, first meeting for election of Sarpanch was held on 18.7.2008, however, the same was postponed for the reason that effort was to elect respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch and he could not be elected on that date, though it was recorded in the minutes of the meeting that none was present. The appellants apprehending manipulations in the election, made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner on 18.7.2008 to change the Presiding Officer. The Deputy Commissioner marked the application to the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer, though issued notices for the adjourned meeting, but the same were not served on the appellants. Since they are residents of the same village, they came to know about the scheduled meeting and the place and reached there, but no meeting was held though they waited till late in the evening. It was only after a week or 10 days that they came to know that respondent No. 1 had been declared as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Immediately his election was challenged. Referring to the record, it was submitted that in the minutes of the meeting recorded on 18.7.2008, it was mentioned that next meeting shall be held on 20.7.2008 at 10.00 A.M., however, the meeting was held at 2.00 P. M. Though in the record, some notices allegedly despatched for the meeting are available, but there is no report of service of notice. Further referring to the statement of respondent No. 1-Jeet Ram, the elected Sarpanch, it was submitted that he himself admitted that from the very beginning, the appellants, who are four in number, were in majority. That clearly means that if they are admittedly in majority, they would have elected any one of them as Sarpanch. The prayer was for setting aside of the election of respondent No. 1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that for the result of election, the appellants are to be blamed. In both the meetings, they were not present. After the first meeting on 18.7.2008, on the request of the appellants, the Presiding Officer was changed. Still on the adjourned meeting, the appellants did not come present. To submit that they were not served with the notices is neither here FAO No. 931 of 2010 [3] nor there, once their own pleaded case is that they were present at the venue of the meeting at the time given. It can be only after service of notice. For holding an adjourned meeting, no quorum was required. Accordingly, no illegality has been committed by the Presiding Officer in declaring respondent No. 1 as elected Sarpanch, as the appellants did not participate in the proceedings. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that election of Sarpanch, which was held in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 20.7.2008, is not free from suspicion. The Panchayat consisted of five Panches. Four Panches from the very beginning are on one side and one on the other side. It has also been pleaded that this group of four Panches belongs to a party not in power in the State. A single person, who does not have support of any of the Panch, was declared elected as Sarpanch. It is even admitted by him in his cross-examination that ever since the election for the Gram Panchayat was held, all the four Panches, the appellants, are together. He further admitted that Kanta, Avtar Singh and Amarjit wanted to elect Kartaro Devi as Sarpanch. Still further, he admitted that he was alone, whereas the other side is in majority. Once it is a fact on record, which is even admitted by respondent No. 1, that the appellants, who are four in number, are together, the plea sought to be raised by respondent No. 1 that when the meeting for election of Sarpanch was held, they wilfully absented is totally mis-conceived. There is nothing on record to justify this contention, rather, the manner in which the election was conducted is not fair. First meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 18.7.2008 when it was recorded by the Presiding Officer that none of the elected Panches was present, hence, the meeting was adjourned. There are notices available on record showing the date of meeting fixed as 18.7.2008 at 11.30 A.M., which has been signed apparently by the Secretary, Market Committee, Gurdaspur. None of the notices show that those were served upon any of the Member Panchayat. Immediately after this meeting, the appellants filed representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, which was marked by him to the Returning Officer for necessary action as FAO No. 931 of 2010 [4] per law. The same has been placed on record as Ex. P3. In the aforesaid representation, it was clearly mentioned that by manipulating the process, the effort is to declare Jeet Ram (respondent No. 1) as Sarpanch, though he is in minority and the appellants, who are in majority, have proposed the name of Kartaro Devi as Sarpanch. It is evident that the aforesaid representation was received by the Presiding Officer on 19.7.2008. The contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that on the representation of the appellants, the Presiding Officer was changed is totally contrary to the record. The minutes of meeting, as are available on record at page 211, show that the proceedings thereof have been recorded under the signatures of Vikramjit Singh Mahal, Manager, Milk Plant, Gurdaspur, who was the Returning Officer. As to how and under whose authority the notices (Ex. PA to Ex. PD) for the meeting scheduled for 18.7.2008 were issued under the signatures of the Secretary, Market Committee, Gurdaspur is not borne out from the record. A perusal of the proceedings book of the meeting (Ex. R1) show that the adjourned meeting was scheduled for 20.7.2008 at 10.00 A.M., however, the notices (Ex. PE to Ex. PH) for the aforesaid meeting show that time given therein was 2.00 P.M. Though apparently these have been signed by the same Presiding Officer, however, no designation or seal of the office was put in, as is required under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. There is no proof of service of the aforesaid notices. The definite stand of the appellants is that having come to know about the meeting, they were present at the spot and remained there till late in the evening, but no meeting was held and it was only after a week or 10 days that they came to know about the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch. As is evident from the material on record, the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, clearly establish that effort was to declare respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch even though he was alone and did not have support of any one in the Panchayat consisting of five Panches. This is nothing else but a slap on the face of democracy where the Members of Panchayat, who are in majority, have not even been permitted to participate in the process for election of Sarpanch. Respondent No. 1, even being a single Member, had enjoyed Sarpanchship for half of the term with FAO No. 931 of 2010 [5] manipulation in the election process. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed that election of the Sarpanch be held immediately without any delay and the process should be completed on or before 25.3.2011. The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 7.2.2011 mk