FAO No.803 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.803 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:03.08.2010. Smt. Chand Rani ...Appellant Versus Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner – cum – Election Tribunal, Hoshiarpur [for short “Tribunal”] by which the election petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The relevant observations of the learned Tribunal are as under: - “I have perused the entire record placed on the file, result sheet produced by the Returning Officer and also considered the arguments put forth by the counsel. The fact that Smt. Gurmit Kaur secured 48 votes and Smt. Chand Rani secured 38 votes and Smt. FAO No.803 of 2010 -2- ***** Sito secured no votes, has not been disputed by the petitioner and it is further corroborated from the result sheet. It is admitted that Smt. Gurmit Kaur secured 48 votes, Smt. Chand Rani secured 38 votes. Smt. Gurmit Kaur secured more votes than Smt. Chand Rani. However, there is cutting in the result sheet. Earlier Smt. Chand Rani was written as elected. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has clarified that there was confusion between two Gurmit Kaur and Gurmit Kaur wife of Sh. Sohan Lal was earlier considered belonging to SC category whereas she belonged to general category and this was error in the result sheet which was corrected at the time. As it is stated above, Smt. Gurmit Kaur wife of Sh. Sohan Lal secured more votes than those of Smt. Chand Rani, therefore, she was rightly declared elected. If an error occurred and was rectified at the time of declaration of result, this does not entitle Smt. Chand Rani to claim elected as Panch. Keeping in view the position explained FAO No.803 of 2010 -3- ***** above, I dismiss the appeal and up hold the election of Smt. Gurmit Kaur w/o Sh. Sohan Lal as Panch (General category woman). Order announced in the presence of the counsel. File may be consigned to record room after due compliance.” Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to find fault with the order of the learned Tribunal as the error had occurred due to the confusion of similarity of names of two candidates which has been rectified. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such the same is dismissed in limine. July 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE