In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.20609-CII of 2010 and F.A.O. No.4797 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:7.9.2011 Harbans Kaur .....Appellant v. Harjit Kaur 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. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.20609-CII of 2010: For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of five days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.4797 of 2010: This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana (for short - `the Tribunal'), whereby Election Petition filed by the appellant for setting aside the election of respondent F.A.O. No.4797 of 2010 [2] No.1 as Panch was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant contested the elections of Member Panchayat (Women General Reserve) of Village Giddri, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. The result of the election was declared on 26.5.2008. The appellant was declared elected as she secured 61 votes as against 45 votes secured by respondent No.1. The result remained the same even on recounting at the instance of Balwinder Singh husband of respondent No.1. The appellant even took oath administered by the Chief Minister of the State. She attended three meetings of Gram Panchayat as a Member Panchayat of Village Giddri and even received agenda of the meetings. It has been immediately after the declaration of result in which Harbans Kaur (appellant) declared as elected, she has been sent various notices Annexures-A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 wherein she has been directed to appear in special meeting for election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that as the opposite party was not in a position to make their Sarpanch, the appellant has wrongly been declared as a defeated candidate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Harbans Kaur has got 61 votes while her opponent Harjit Kaur (respondent No.1) has got 45 votes. However, the respondents after finding themselves to be in minority for the election of Sarpanch has reversed the decision and have declared Harjit Kaur as winning candidate. Learned counsel for the appellant has specifically pointed to Annexure-A.4, which is a letter issued by the Presiding Officer, Gram Panchayat Elections, wherein the name of the present appellant has been written as Harbans Kaur alias F.A.O. No.4797 of 2010 [3] Harjit Kaur. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the decision of the Tribunal is self- explanatory and the petition of the present appellant has been rightly rejected. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. Generally recounting is avoided in Courts. However, present is an exceptional case in which earlier appellant-Harbans Kaur has been declared elected, she has been sent notices to appear in special meetings but later on at the time of publication respondent No.1 Harjit Kaur is shown as winning candidate. With this background, the election record was summoned in the Court and Shri Gurmeet Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Payal has come with the record. On the directions of the Court, Naib Tehsildar along with State counsel were directed to physically count the votes which were polled in favour of the appellant as well as that of respondent No.1- Harjit Kaur. To the utter surprise of this Court, the averments made by the counsel for the appellant are found to be correct. The appellant Harbans Kaur has got 61 votes while her opponent Harjit Kaur has got 45 votes. The officials of respondents have wrongly declared Harjit Kaur as elected. The statement of Shri Gurmeet Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Payal in this regard is also recorded today in the Court. After going through the entire episode, I have reached at the conclusion that the respondents have deliberately declared Harjit Kaur as elected candidate despite the fact that she was having less number of votes. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the concerned F.A.O. No.4797 of 2010 [4] officials seem to have come under the pressure of their superiors in utter dereliction of their duties which were assigned to them. Keeping in view the hardships faced by the appellant and the fact that she has remained out of power for a period of approximately three years despite having winning the election, I allow this appeal with `50,000/- as special costs to be payable by the Government. The cost money will go to the appellant. The Government may recover this costs from the erring officials after holding an inquiry. Since the result of the winning candidate Harbans Kaur is likely to affect the election of Sarpanch, it is hereby directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in his presence will hold the election for the post of Sarpanch by giving proper notice to all the Panches and by following the procedure required to select Sarpanch. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. September 7, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*