FAO No. 2847 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 2.5.2011 (1) FAO No. 2847 of 2010 (O&M) Patwinder Kaur and another ... Appellants v. Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner), Faridkot and others ... Respondents. (1) FAO No. 6471 of 2010 (O&M) Kulbir Kaur ... Appellant v. Sukhdev Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No. 2847 of 2010 and for respondents No.1 and 4 in RFA No.6471 of 2010. Mr. S. K. Chawla, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No. 6471 of 2010 and for respondent No. 2 in FAO No. 2847 of 2010. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common order. In FAO No. 2847 of 2010, challenge is to the order dated 8.4.2010, passed by the Election Tribunal, Faridkot (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby election petition filed by respondent No.2 was allowed by setting aside election of the appellants, namely, Patwinder Kaur and Sukhdev Kaur for Panches of Gram Panchayat Kothe Warring, Kotkapura, FAO No. 2847 of 2010 2 Tehsil and District Faridkot. Challenge in FAO No. 6471 of 2010 is to the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Election Tribunal, Faridkot, whereby the election petition filed by appellant-Kulbir Kaur was partly allowed by quashing the election of respondents No.1 and 4. The appellant, who was petitioner before the Tribunal has sought quashing of the election of all five Panches of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No.2847 of 2010 submitted that the election petition filed by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable on account of violation of the provisions of Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, `the Act'). In terms thereof, the election petition was to be presented by the candidate herself in person. In the present case, as is evident from the record the election petition has been presented by respondent No. 2 through her counsel. In case of violation of provisions of Section 76 of the Act as a consequence thereof, as provided for in Section 80 of the Act, the election petition was required to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this court in Gurlal Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others, 2010(5) RCR (Civil) 474 and Manjit Kaur vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 784. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and appellant in FAO No.6471 of 2010 while not disputing the fact that the election petition was presented through counsel, submitted that election of all the Panches should have been set aside by the Tribunal. In fact, no election was held as nomination of all the candidates were wrongly rejected. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not in dispute that the election petition was not presented by respondent No.2 herself. In terms of Gurlal Singh's and Manjit Kaur's cases (supra), an election petition having not been presented by the FAO No. 2847 of 2010 3 election petitioner in person, the same is liable to be dismissed. As the election petition filed by respondent No.2 itself was not maintainable having not been presented by her before the Tribunal in person, her prayer for quashing the election of all five Panches is also meritless. In view of the above FAO No.2847 of 2010 filed by the appellants is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed. As the election petition filed by respondent No.2 was not maintainable, FAO No.6471 of 2010 filed by her is dismissed and consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.5.2011 sharmila