FAO No.5001 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5001 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:10.08.2010. Parminder Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Deputy Commissioner-cum- Election Tribunal and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM No.4111-CII of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. CM No.4112-CII of 2010 Notice in the application. Shri Ravish Bansal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that he does not want to file any reply. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. CM stands disposed of. FAO No.5001 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - ***** FAO No.5001 of 2009 (O&M) This appeal is directed against order of the Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers as Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Faridkot [for short “Election Tribunal”] dated 19.05.2009 by which the election petition filed by the appellants challenging the election of respondent Nos.2 to 6 has been dismissed. The Gram Panchayat Wara Daraka comprises of 9 Panches. On 23.07.2008, a meeting was convened for the election of Sarpanch. The said meeting failed due to lack of quorum. Thereafter, the next meeting was fixed for 24.07.2008 to be held at 11.00 am. In the said meeting, the appellants were allegedly not present despite notices, therefore, in terms of Rule 45 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (for short “the Rules”), the meeting was convened and respondent No.1 was declared elected as Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is violation of Rule 45(5) of the Rules as the Presiding Officer did not give clear 24 hours notice as contemplated under Rule 45(5) of the Rules. According to him, the previous meeting was held on 23.07.2008 at 11.30 am, whereas the subsequent meeting was held on the next day (24.07.2008) at 11.00 am. Therefore, the notice was not of clear 24 hours. He also submits that the meeting was held at some other place instead of the place which is mentioned in the notice. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the election petition has been filed by an advocate FAO No.5001 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - ***** which is apparent from the order passed by the Election Tribunal on 29.08.2008, which reads as under: - “Presented today by Shri Gursahib Singh Brar, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. To come up on 02.09.2008 for consideration after office report.” Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gurlal Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others in FAO No.1012 of 2010 decided on 26.03.2010, in which it has been held that the election petition has to be filed by a candidate in terms of Section 76(1) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 [for short Act No.19 of 1994) and if it is not filed by a candidate, it is in violation of Section 76(1) of the Act which offends Section 80 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the election petition was filed by an advocate but the appellants were also present there. I have heard both the learned counsel in this regard and I am of the view that there is nothing on record to prove presence of the appellants at the time of presentation of the election petition before the learned Election Tribunal, rather it is apparent from the record that the election petition was presented by an advocate instead of the candidates themselves. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gurlal Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others (supra), the election petition is bad in the eyes of law and is in violation of Section 76(1) of the Act and once the FAO No.5001 of 2009 (O&M) - 4 - ***** election petition is bad in law, nothing survives in the appeal as well. Hence the same is hereby dismissed. August 10, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE