In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.4862 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:29.11.2011 Ruldu Singh and another .....Appellants v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent respondents No.5 and 6. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.1.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Patiala (for short `the Tribunal'), whereby Election Petition filed by the petitioners (respondents No.5 and 6 herein) for setting aside the election of respondents No.3 and 4 (appellants herein) as Panches was allowed. The petitioners (respondents No.5 and 6) had sought setting aside the election of respondents No.3 and 4 (appellants) as Panches on F.A.O. No.4862 of 2009 [2] the ground that they were wrongly declared as elected Members of Gram Panchayat Village Pedhan, Block, Nabha, District Patiala. Petitioner No.1- Malkiat Singh got 88 votes against General category seat as against 30 votes polled in favour of respondent No.4-Chamkaur Singh. Similarly, petitioner No.2-Harbans Singh got 32 votes against S.C. reserve category seat as against 8 votes polled in favour of respondent No.3-Ruldu Singh. The petitioners were declared winner after counting of votes and the certificates were issued to them by the Returning Officer on 27.5.2008. They were administered oath along with other Members on 11.7.2008, however, some official inadvertently sent letters to the defeated candidates i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 as elected Panches and inviting them to appear in the special meeting to be held on 13.7.2008 for the election of Sarpanch. The petitioners on the direction of B.D.P.O. contacted Returning Officer, who told them that he could not do anything as the names of respondents No.3 and 4 was reflected in the list of winning candidates. Therefore, the petitioners filed the petition before the Tribunal. The respondent No.1 (Returning Officer) filed written statement on 12.8.2008 and admitted the fact that the petitioners were declared winners after counting of votes and certificates to the same effect were issued to them. He admitted that there was clerical mistake while preparing the result sheet. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence and material before it allowed the petition and declared the petitioners as elected Members. Hence, the appellants (respondents No.3 and 4) have come in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the resolution passed on 17.7.2008, Netar Singh, Sarpanch got some papers signed from F.A.O. No.4862 of 2009 [3] them and other elected Panches on the pretext that the proceedings have to be sent to the concerned authority. In the month of July 2008 due to some manipulation, respondents No.5 and 6 filed election petition wherein they have challenged the election of the appellants on the ground that they were wrongly declared as elected Panches. In the impugned order a reference has been made to the affidavits of the appellants whereas the appellants never submitted such affidavits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 argued that the appellants were declared elected inadvertently due to clerical mistake which has rightly been got corrected vide impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He contended that the impugned order is well reasoned and no interference is called for. After hearing the learned counsel for for the parties and going through the records, I do not find any merit in this appeal. From the records, it is evident that respondent No.5 has got 88 votes as against 30 votes got by appellant No.2 against the general category seat. Respondent No.6 got 32 votes as against 8 votes got by appellant No.1 against SC reserve seat. In the written statement filed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, it has been admitted that there is clerical mistake due to which the appellants were declared as elected Members wrongly. He has admitted that on coming to know the mistake, he immediately withheld the certificates of Ruldu Singh and Chamkaur Singh (appellants) and cancelled them. Thereafter, he prepared a revised result sheet and contacted the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Divisional Electoral Officer, Nabha along with all the candidates to solve the problem and wrote letter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha. The S.D.M., Nabha on 6.6.2008 forwarded the case of corrections to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, who F.A.O. No.4862 of 2009 [4] informed that the correction in the result is possible through election petition only. A perusal of the above shows that there is apparently a clerical mistake in declaring the appellants as elected Members in place of respondents No.5 and 6. Once the elections are over and the appellants have been elected, the remedy available to respondents No.5 and 6 was to approach the competent authority with the relevant material against the appellants for their removal from the office of Panches. It was under these circumstances that the Tribunal, while allowing the election petition filed by the petitioners (respondents No.5 and 6), held that it was a case of grave negligence on the part of Returning Officer (respondent No.1) who wrongly declared the defeated candidates (appellants) as elected. He therefore, declared the petitioner No.1 (General category) (respondent No.5) and petitioner No.2 (SC reserve) (respondent No.6) as elected Panches of Gram Panchayat Village Pedhan, Block Nabha, District, Patiala. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. November 29, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*