CR No.46 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.46 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21.10.2009 **** Rajesh Kumar Gupta . . . . Petitioner VS. Harmohinder Singh Lucky & Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Chetan Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). No one appears on behalf of respondent No.1-the contesting Respondent, who despite service remained absent on the last date of hearing also. (2). This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2007 passed by the Election Tribunal, UT, Chandigarh, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner to struck off the pleadings and consequently to dismiss the election petition, as it does not disclose any cause of action as well as on other legal objections, has been dismissed by the Election Tribunal after observing that the objections raised by the petitioner would be decided after giving an opportunity to the respondent No.1 to lead his evidence. CR No.46 of 2008 - 2 - (3). It may be noticed here that the petitioner was declared elected as a Councillor to the Municipal Corporation, UT, Chandigarh in the election held on 20th December, 2006. The result of the said election has been challenged by the first Respondent by way of an election petition pending before the Election Tribunal, U.T., Chandigarh. It is in the said petition that petitioner moved an application, inter alia, alleging that the election petition is based upon vague and evasive allegations and lacks in material particulars and is liable to be rejected on that count alone. He has raised certain legal objections as well but his application has been dismissed by the Election Tribunal, as observed earlier, on the plea that the objections would be decided after respondent No.1 leads his evidence. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the election petition. (5). Suffice it to say that some of the averments made in the election petition are so vague and evasive that no reply can possibly be given. For example, while alleging bribery, the first Respondent has averred that the petitioner “has taken the voters of the above said Ward on a free trip to Mata Vaishno Devi shrine for which all the expenses have been paid................ by him.” When was such a free trip was arranged and through whom, as to who were the voters and what was the mode of traveling and how many persons, male/female were traveling in each vehicle and in whose presence such amount of expenses were paid, are conspicuously missing in the petition. A party can be CR No.46 of 2008 - 3 - permitted to lead his evidence in order to prove and substantiate a specific plea already taken by it. Any further observation(s), if any, made at this stage, might unnecessarily prejudice the parties. (6). For the reasons aforestated, I am of the considered view that the application made by the petitioner, raising certain objections against the maintainability of the election petition and/or to strike off the part of the pleadings, deserves to be re-considered by the Election Tribunal in accordance with law. (7). Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 29.08.2007 is hereby set aside and the Election Tribunal is directed to re-decide the petitioner’s application and after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 21.10.2009 vishal shonkar