IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13793 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 08, 2008 Balwinder Kaur .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.Ashok Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Sindhu, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.V.K.Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, who is an elected Panch of Gram Panchayat of Village Dheer, Block Batala, District Gurdaspur, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No.5 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that the office of Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat Dheer has been reserved for SC (Woman) and the petitioner is also a SC (Woman), though elected as a Sarpanch from the General Category. Therefore, she is eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch being a SC (Woman). It is further the case of the petitioner that the Returning Officer has illegally not permitted the petitioner to contest the election on the ground that she was not elected as a Panch from the seat reserved for SC (Woman). C.W.P. No.13793 of 2008 -2- In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.5, it has been disclosed that the election of respondent No.5 as Sarpanch of the of the Gram Panch has been notified. Further, a preliminary objection has been taken that in view of the decision of this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.13643 of 2008, decided on August 22, 2008), wherein it has held that in view of Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), election of Sarpanch is to be challenged by filing an election petition under Section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Act. After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of election petition. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that since this petition was to be filed within 45 days from the date of election of the office of Sarpanch, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, (1996) 6 SCC 199, the petitioner may be permitted to file election petition within three weeks from today and in case election petition is filed within three weeks, the same may be directed to be heard on merits by the Election Tribunal. Counsel for the respondents have no objection in this regard. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an election petition within three weeks under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No.5. C.W.P. No.13793 of 2008 -3- Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, if the election petition is filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 08, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE