FAO No. 4924 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4924 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2011 Tarsem Lal ...Appellant Versus SDM-cum-Presiding Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Shahkot (for short “the Tribunal”) dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, challenging the election of respondent No.2 to the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat village Sarhali, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Along with the appeal an application seeking condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the appeal also has been filed. Briefly, the facts as are available on record are, that the appellant contested election for the post of Panch, Gram Panchayat Sarhali, which was held on May 26, 2008. Having not been declared successful, he filed election petition seeking declaration that respondent No.2-Shinder Pal has been wrongly elected as Panch in the Scheduled Caste category and also for declaring him as a winning candidate. The election petition having been dismissed by the Tribunal, the order has been challenged 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 whereby his petition has been dismissed. The manner in which election was held was not fair. He further submitted that respondent No.2 was Chairman of the Water Supply and Sanitation Committee of Village Sarhali and used unfair means to get himself elected by giving allurement of water connection to the people of the village in lieu of votes. FAO No. 4924 of 2010 2 On the asking of the court, he submitted that the appellant in the present case had contested election only in the Scheduled Caste category. He in his petition had impleaded all the candidates who had contested election in that category. Section 77 (a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) provides that the candidates who contested election in various categories are required to be impleaded as party in an election petition. It would be sufficient to implead the contesting candidates in the category in which the election petitioner was one of the candidate, as the result of the election petition as such is not going to effect the election of any other candidate. 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 respondent No.2-Shinder Pal 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 same category. In the election petition the parties impleaded were merely the candidates, who according to the appellant, had contested the election for the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste. 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 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 FAO No. 4924 of 2010 3 (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 respondent No.2-Shinder Pal as void against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category and also for declaring him an elected Panch. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the elected or contesting candidates of the categories other then 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. 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. Consequence of non-impleadment of necessary parties in terms of Section 77 of the Act have been provided for in Section 80 of the Act and for the non-compliance thereof the election petition is to be dismissed. 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. FAO No. 4924 of 2010 4 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, FAO No.5413 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Kaur Vs. Election Tribunal and others decided on 13.01.2011, FAO No.3292 of 2010, decided on 24.2.2011 titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Rana Singh and others and FAO No.5461 of 2009 titled as Jarnail Kaur vs. Rani and others decided on 03.03.2011. 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 16.03.2011 sharmila