FAO No.5008 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5008 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2011 Santosh Rattan ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short “the Tribunal) whereby the election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of Ram Piary as Panch of Village Pawan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur in the category of Scheduled Caste reserved for women, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant as well as Ram Piary secured 54 votes each. In such a situation, the Presiding Officer was required to conduct draw of lots in terms of Rule 35 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (for short “the Rules”) in the present case draw of lots was not held and Ram Piary was declared as elected by the Presiding Officer in violation of the provisions of the Rules. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that counting of the votes was held in the presence of the candidates and their agents. After it was found that two of the candidates had secured same number of votes, Ram Piary was declared elected as Panch after draw of lots, which was conducted in the presence of all the candidates. In fact, two other candidates in the category of Backward Class FAO No.5008 of 2009 (O&M) 2 also got same number of votes and draw of lots was held in their case as well at the same time, which was accepted as correct by the parties. The arguments in the case were earlier heard and learned State counsel was asked to get record of the case. The record of the election was produced in the court today. Seal of the record was opened in the court and after perusal, the same was re-sealed and handed over to the counsel for the respondents. From a perusal of the record it was found that in the envelope containing the counter files of the ballot papers used in the election, two slips were found, one containing the name of Ram Piary and other in the name of Jaswinder Pal. Ram Piary was declared elected after draw of lots in the category of Scheduled Caste reserved for women, whereas Jaswinder Pal was elected after draw of lots in the reserved category of Backward Class. In her cross-examination the appellant admitted that she along with other candidates and agents were present at the time of counting of votes and the counting was rightly done. The grouse of the appellant is regarding draw of lots. The record of the case produced in the court shows that there are two slips lying in the envelope containing the names of the elected candidates after the draw of lots, also that all the candidates were present when the counting had taken place. Form-9 on which the proceedings have been recorded clearly shows the presence of the parties even when the result of the draw of lots was declared. From the record it cannot be opined that no draw of lots was held. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 19.01.2011 sharmila