CWP No.252 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.1.2010 Harcharan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The present petition has been preferred seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the action of the respondents to hold election to only seven posts of Panches in Gram Panchayat Village Ghuda and not to all nine posts, of which the Gram Panchayat compromises. The challenge has been made on the ground that two posts of Panch were treated to have been filled as unopposed earlier. Later, however, the election was countermanded. According to learned counsel, once the election is countermanded, all the seats are deemed to have fallen vacant and the notification now issued, should have been for all the nine posts so vacated as a result of countermanding of the CWP No.252 of 2010 2 election. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has referred to affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent No.2. He submits that question of law, which has been raised in the present petition, has been decided by this court in CWP No.10547 of 2008 titled as “Balwinder Singh vs. The State of Punjab & others”, decided on 23rd December, 2008. He has referred to operative portion of the judgment delivered in the said case and submits that the instant case is covered by ratio of the said judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The judgment relied upon by the learned State counsel in Balwinder Singh's case (supra) lays down:- “In our opinion, it is thus clear that once the declaration of result, either in Form V or in Form IX in case of uncontested election and in Form IX in case of a contested election, has been issued/recorded by the Returning Officer then there can be no question of countermanding the election and tinkering with the result by the State Election Commission or any other authority including the Returning Officer on the ground of improper rejection or acceptance of the nomination papers or any other illegality committed by the Returning Officer (as alleged in the present two cases). The only remedy available to a candidate is to file an Election Petition under Section 76 on the grounds mentioned in Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. In the present two cases, it is not disputed that the number of candidates for election of Panches in their respective CWP No.252 of 2010 3 categories was equal to the seats to be filled up and the result of their election had been duly recorded in Form IX issued by the Returning Officer, declaring the petitioner(s) to be elected Panches of his/their respective Gram Panchayats. It is further undisputed that after the declaration and issuance of the statutory Form IX, complaints against improper rejection of the nomination papers of the candidates were received and enquired into. The State Election Commission, on consideration of such reports had issued the impugned orders countermanding the elections after setting aside the election of the petitioner(s) as Panches of their respective Gram Panchayats. The stand taken by the respondents that the State Election Commission had issued the impugned orders whereby the elections in the two aforesaid Gram Panchyayats had been countermanded, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Balbir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.8448/2008 decided on 21.5.2008 (Annexure R- 2), is not sustainable as it was not pointed out to the Court that in certain cases like the present ones, the result of the election in accordance with the law had been duly declared in statutory Form IX. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussed provisions, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure P/8 in CWP No.10547/2008) and 23.5.2008 (Annexure P/4 in CWP No.9573/2008) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the aforesaid impugned orders are quashed. The official respondents are further directed to notify the petitioners as elected members of their respective Gram Panchayats. Sd/- Jaswant Singh Judge Sd/- Satish Kumar Mittal, Judge” It appears that the controversy involved in this case is CWP No.252 of 2010 4 squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to raise any argument to distinguish the facts of the instant case from the ratio laid down above. I am, thus, of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 18, 2010 'rajpal'