IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10276 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 11, 2008 Boota Singh and others .....PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.P.L. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, for respondents No.5,6 and 8 to 10. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Members, Panchayat, whereby the nomination papers of the petitioners illegally, with a further prayer to quash the notification dated 20.2.2008 issued by respondent No.4 reserving the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rehrawan for the candidate belonging to General Category. Pursuant to notice, separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3, and respondents No.5 to 10, which have been taken on record. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3, it has been averred that after receipt of the representation/complaint of the petitioners dated 20.5.2008, the Public Grievances Officer looked into the matter and the said officer, after holding a detailed inquiry, found nothing wrong in the decision of the Returning Officer for rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners. It has been further averred that with regard to the rejection of nomination papers, the petitioners have the remedy C.W.P. No.10276 of 2008 -2- by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal to prove their case. Similar stand has been taken by respondents No.5 to 10 in their written statement. Undisputedly, the petitioners have not filed an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidates on the ground that nomination papers of the petitioners were illegally rejected. Counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the written statements filed by the respondents and the disputed questions of facts raised in this petition, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an election petition under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the Election Tribunal. Counsel further contends that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, (1996) 6 SCC 199, the petitioners may be permitted to file the said election petition within three weeks, and in case election petition is filed within three weeks, the same may be directed to be heard on merits by the Election Tribunal. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an election petition under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Act challenging the rejection of the returned candidates, within three weeks from today. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, if the election petition is filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to decide the same expeditiously. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 11, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE