C.W.P. No.2214 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2214 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.7.2010 Dalbir Kaur and others ……Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.6. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. 1. Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of the election of respondent No.7 from the post of Panch of Gram Panchayat, Malakpur, District Gurdaspur. A further manda- C.W.P. No.2214 of 2009 -2- mus is also sought commanding the respondents No.1 to 6 to hold fresh elections of the Panch of Gram Panchayat, Malakpur and to hold inquiry from the State Election Commission for not allowing the petitioners to participate in the election. 2. The ground to challenge the election is that nomination papers of the petitioners were not received by the Returning Officer, respondent No.6, under the political pressure and he has received only two nomination papers i.e. of respondent No.7 and another lady named Narinder Kaur, respondent No.8. Thereafter, Narinder Kaur, respondent No.8, with the collusion of respondent No.7 had with- drawn her nomination. Consequently, respondent No.7 was declared elected as Panch of the Gram Panchayat unopposed. 3. This Court vide order dated 12.2.2009 while directing the issuance of notice to the respondents, directed Election Commis- sioner, Punjab to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made in the petition, and also directed him to file an affidavit in this Court. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by this Court, Mr. A. K. Dubey on behalf of State Election Commissioner, Punjab has filed his report dated 15.4.2009. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under:- “Therefore, though there is no conclusive evi- dence to establish that the petitioners reached the office of Returning Officer before 3.00 PM on 05.02.2009 in order to file their nomination papers, but the preparatory steps C.W.P. No.2214 of 2009 -3- taken by the petitioners and the circumstantial evidence produced to lend credence to the contentions of the petitioners. Further, it is also established that the Returning Officer was not present during the entire period be- tween 11.00 AM to 3.00 PM, the prescribed period of presentation of nomination papers. This lapse is in violation of the prescribed rules and procedure for the conduct of elec- tions and to that extent vitiates the election process.” 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that State Election Commissioner has reported that election process vitiated due to violation of the rules and procedure for conduct of the election. He further argued that in view of the report of the State Election Commissioner dated 15.4.2009, present petition is liable to be allowed. 6. I have seriously perused the report filed by the State Elec- tion Commissioner, Punjab. State Election Commissioner in the re- port has mentioned that there is no conclusive evidence to establish that petitioners reached the office of Returning Officer before 3.00 PM on 5.2.2009, in order to file their nomination papers. 7. In view of this, I am of the opinion that while exercising ju- risdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court or- dinarily shall not examine disputed question of fact. As to whether C.W.P. No.2214 of 2009 -4- petitioners reached in time to file nomination papers is a question of fact. It can be examined in an election petition. 8. In view of the above, present petition is liable to be dis- missed on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy to the pe- titioners to challenge the election in the election petition. 9. Petition is dismissed. However, petitioners, if so advised, can challenge the election of respondent No.7 by way of filing proper election petition. ( ALOK SINGH ) 23rd July, 2010 JUDGE ashish