FAO No. 3292 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3292 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 Sukhwinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Rana Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, S.A.S. Nagar (for short “the Tribunal”) dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, challenging the election of respondent No.1 to the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat village Batta, Block and Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar. Briefly, the facts as are available on record are, that respondent No.1 contested election for the post of Panch, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste, Gram Panchayat Batta, held on May 26, 2008. Respondent No.1 was declared elected for the post of Panch. The election of respondent No.1 was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the information submitted by him in the form of affidavit at the time of filing of nomination papers, was wrong. The election petition having been dismissed by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order vide which the Tribunal has dismissed the election petition suffers from legal infirmity. At the time of filing of nomination papers, respondent No.1 did not mention that any criminal case was pending against him and thereby concealed this fact. He further submitted that the election of respondent No.1 be declared as void on this ground alone. FAO No. 3292 of 2010 2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. A perusal of the prayer, made by the appellant in the election petition, filed by him shows that he had sought declaration to the effect that election of Rana Singh as Panch of the Member Gram Panchayat be declared as null and void and consequently the appellant be declared as elected member of Panchayat in Scheduled Caste category after considering his candidature in the Scheduled Caste category. In the election petition the parties impleaded were merely the candidates, who according to the appellant, had contested the election in that category. The issue, which is required to be considered by this court is very short, namely, as to whether the defeated candidate while challenging the election of another person in his category is required to implead the candidates, who contested election in that category or all the persons who had contested election for various posts of Panches in that Gram Panchayat? Section 77 (a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short the Act), which is extracted below, provides for impleadment of parties in an election petition. “77. Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition- (a) where he, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that election petitioner is required to join as respondent in his election petition all the contesting candidates in case the prayer is for declaration of election of all or any of the candidates as void and a further prayer has been made for declaring the petitioner therein as one of the elected candidate. In the present case, as noticed aforesaid the prayer of the appellant was to declare the election of Rana Singh as void against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category and also for declaring him an elected Panch, hence, he was required to implead all the contesting candidates as respondents. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant FAO No. 3292 of 2010 3 that as the elected or contesting candidates of the categories other than those whose election was under challenge, would not be materially affected with the result of the election petition, hence, not required to be impleaded as party therein, cannot be accepted as such. On a plain reading of Section 77 (a) of the Act, it is evident that in case the prayer in the election petition is for declaration of result of all or any of the returned candidates as void and further relief has been claimed to declare the petitioner therein elected, all the contesting candidates are to be impleaded as parties. However, where further relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected candidate has not been made, only the returned candidates are required to be impleaded. It does not provide that only the category of the candidates contesting or returned to which the election petitioner belonged, are to be impleaded as parties. Section 80 of the Act provides for the consequences for non- impleading of necessary parties in an election petition. Once the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court is to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the provision of the statute. The court cannot add words in the statute unless a plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. It is only in these circumstances that the court can do some violence with the provisions of a statute to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction. The facts of the case in hand do not require this court to use tools for interpretation of statues, as the language of the provision is plain and simple. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Manjit Kaur Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 784 and in FAO No.5413 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Kaur Vs. Election Tribunal and others decided on 13.01.2011. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 24.02.2011 sharmila