IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.561 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 26.10.2010 **** Hardeep Singh . . . . Appellant Vs Baljeet Kaur and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K. Garg, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order of the Election Tribunal-cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Payal dated 25.11.2009 by which election petition filed by Baljeet Kaur has been allowed as a result of which election of the present appellant-Hardeep Singh has been upset. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the Gram Panchayat of Village Naraingarh, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana consists of 7 members, in which 3 posts were meant for General Category, 1 post for Woman, 2 posts for Scheduled Castes and 1 for Scheduled Caste (Woman). Hardeep Singh and Charanjeet Singh both had contested in the Scheduled Castes category and were elected unopposed. In the category of Scheduled Caste (Woman), Baljeet Kaur and Amandeep Kaur had contested in which Amandeep Kaur was declared elected. After the election was held, Baljeet Kaur filed the election petition in which only Baljit Singh and Hardeep Singh were impleaded as respondents. He further submits that election petition was bad in law in view of Section 77 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) because the election petitioner did not implead all the contesting candidates much less even the candidate who has been elected in her category. Section 80 of the Act provides that if there is a violation of Section 76, 77 and 103 of the Act, there is no alternative with the Election Tribunal but to dismiss the election petition. Learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant. In view thereof, the appeal is allowed, election petition filed by respondent No.1 Baljeet Kaur is held to be patently illegal and as such the impugned order is set aside and the election petition is dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 26, 2010 JUDGE Vivek