CIVIL REVISION NO.1584 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 07, 2008 Prem Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS Bahadar Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Thind, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.11.2006 whereby his election as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti, Ward No.28, Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, has been set-aside. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were candidates for the election of Member, Panchayat Samiti of the above mentioned CIVIL REVISION NO.1584 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Block. The election was to be held on 9.4.2005. The nomination paper of respondent No.2, however, was rejected. In the election that followed in April 2005, the petitioner was declared elected as Member of the Panchayat Samiti. The election of the petitioner was challenged by filing an election petition by respondent No.1 on 11.5.2005 before Election Tribunal mainly on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No.2 was illegally rejected. The Election Tribunal issued summons to the petitioner for 30.8.2005. Fresh summons were issued for 19.12.2005, when the earlier one were not received back served or otherwise. Respondent No.2 did not deposit the process fee in time and fresh summons for 19.12.2005 could be issued only on 5.12.2005, though the order was made on 30.8.2005. Jatinder Kumar was the Process Server, who went to serve the summons on 15.12.2005. He has given a report that the petitioner refused to accept the service and thereafter the summons were affixed at his residence. On 19.12.2005, the Election Tribunal proceeded against the petitioner ex-parte. Respondent No.2 led the evidence and ultimately the election of the petitioner was set- aside on 17.11.2006. This order is now under challenge in the present revision petition. The grouse of the petitioner is that he was not served but the report about service was wrongly managed. The report of the Process Server has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The refusal for service by the petitioner is evidenced by one Het Ram son of Atma Ram, resident of Modiakhera. The counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no person by the name of Het Ram, who is bonafide resident of Village Modiakhera, as no such person CIVIL REVISION NO.1584 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: appears in the voters list of the village. From this, it is urged that this report of refusal was obtained by making some outsider to evidence the same, leading to passing of an exparte order by the Election Tribunal. It is submitted that a person who is elected would always be keen to contest the election petition if filed, challenging his election and would not refuse to receive summons, if brought to his notice. As averred in the petition, the notice for 19.12.2005 was issued on 30.8.2005 but the process could be issued only on 5.12.2005 as the respondent did not file process. The summons were marked to the Process Server only on 15.12.2005, who gave his report on 17.12.2005, just two days prior to the date fixed for appearance. The person who was made to stand as a witness to the refusal is statedly not resident of the village. Setting-aside of an election is a serious issue and amounts to interfering with the will of the electorate. It should normally be done only after giving opportunity to both sides to represent their respective stands. The election of the petitioner was challenged on a technical ground relating rejection of the nomination paper of the respondents wrongly, for which the petitioner had no responsibility. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 could not say much except that the nomination paper of the respondents was wrongly rejected and the election of the petitioner has been rightly set-aside. The petitioner has been denied the opportunity to contest the plea raised by the respondents about rejection of his nomination paper wrongly. The chances of petitioner not being served can not be easily ignored. Why the process server felt the need to make a CIVIL REVISION NO.1584 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: person to witness the service is not forthcoming. If it was to be done, then a person from the village or locality could have been asked to do so. The petitioner has come forward to state on oath that he was not served by the Process Server. This evidence can not be ignored. The respondents would be in no position to know if the petitioner was served or not. No evidence has been placed on record to rebut the petitioner in this regard through the process server or the witness who was present at the time of effecting service. The petitioner has right to contest the petition, which is to challenge his election and his election can not be allowed to be set-aside without affording him opportunity to present his side. The petition accordingly is allowed and the order dated 17.11.2006 is set-aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Election Tribunal on 30.1.2008. The Election Tribunal shall thereafter give proper opportunity to the parties to prosecute the election petition. The Election Tribunal will make an endevour to decide the election petition within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. January 07,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE