FAO No. 4019 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4019 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.3.2011 Kuldip Singh and others .. Appellants v. Harbans Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Bhandohal, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent No. 1. .... Rajesh Bindal J. Majority of the elected Panches are before this court impugning order dated 21.5.2009, passed by Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, `the Tribunal') dismissing their election petition, challenging the election of respondent No. 1-Harbans Lal as Sarpanch. Briefly, the facts are that election of Gram Panchayat, Sanghreri was held on 26.5.2008. It consisted of nine Panches. Elected Panches were administered the oath of office on 11.7.2008. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for general category. First meeting for election of Sarpanch was held on 17.7.2008. However, on account of quorum being not there, the meeting was postponed for 22.7.2008. On 22.7.2008, all the nine Panches were present. Their attendance was marked. Name of Kuldip Singh from one group and Harbans Singh from the other group were proposed for election as Sarpanch. Harbans Singh was elected as Sarpanch having been casted four votes in his favour on the plea that other five Panches abstained from voting. Immediately thereafter, the present appellants filed C.W.P. No. 13098 of 2008 in this court challenging the election of respondent No. 1 as FAO No. 4019 of 2009 [2] Sarpanch, which was disposed of by this court on 26.9.2008 as withdrawn with liberty to the present appellants to file election petition before the Tribunal. The election petition so filed having been dismissed by the Tribunal, the appellants are before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the manner in which respondent No. 1 has been declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was not just and fair. He admittedly was having support of merely three more Panches. Majority of the Panches, namely, five in the Gram Panchayat consisting of nine Panches being on the other side, were not even permitted to cast their votes. Immediately after the election, the appellants filed the writ petition and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file the election petition. Thereafter election petition was filed. However, it was dismissed by the Tribunal with the observation that five other Panches, though present at the time of meeting, did not choose to participate in the election. The finding is totally erroneous and in fact, under the pressure and threat the appellants were not even permitted to participate in the election. Though it was claimed by respondent No. 1 that there was no police force present, but the same was incorrect. Even in his cross-examination, respondent No. 1 admitted that he will not be in a position to prove his majority in court. Meaning thereby even now he is being permitted to remain as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat without he being in majority. There was no good reason for the appellants to have abstained from voting as they being in majority would have elected appellant No. 1 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The prayer was for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 and direction for holding fresh election. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant referred record. The facts of the case have been noticed above. The decision hinges on the fact as to whether the appellants abstained from voting at the time of election of Sarpanch or not, as it is the admitted case even of respondent No. 1 that he is not in majority though was elected as Sarpanch. In the Gram Panchayat consisting of nine Panches, five are before this court challenging the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch, who was having FAO No. 4019 of 2009 [3] support of only three other Panches. Apparently, this court does not find any good reason on record as to why they will abstain from voting once there is no dispute that they are in majority. This is corroborated from the developments which took place immediately after the election, when the appellants filed C.W.P. No. 13098 of 2008 in this court challenging the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch. After the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the election petition, all of them together filed the election petition. Having failed before the Tribunal, they are in appeal before this court together. On a consideration of the entire sequence of events, it will not be reasonable to opine that the appellants would have abstained from voting at the time of election of Sarpanch. The manner in which panchayat elections were conducted in Punjab and the persons, who were in minority were declared elected as Sarpanch, has already been commented upon by this court in number of cases. In some of the cases, even action has been recommended against the Presiding Officers. The case in hand is also not different. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellants is accepted. The election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Sanghreri, Tehsil & District Sangrur, is set aside and the competent authority is directed to hold fresh elections within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The appeal is disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.3.2011 mk