FAO No.5030 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** FAO No.5030 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.11.2010 ***** Boota Singh and others . . . . Appellants Versus Gurdial Singh and others . . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.V.S. Chug, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by Election Tribunal (DC), Mansa (for short ‘the Election Tribunal) by which election petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.5.2008, election was held to constitute the Gram Panchayat of 7 members of Village Alisher Khurd Tehsil and District Mansa, comprising of following members namely, (i) Boota Singh; (ii) Surjit Singh; (iii) Paramjit Kaur; (iv) Darshan Singh; (v) Gurdial Singh (vi) Dalip Singh and (vii) Malkiat Kaur. Thereafter in order to elect the Sarpanch, a meeting was convened on 21.7.2008 at 2.00 PM in the office of Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Bhikhi. However, the said FAO No.5030 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - meeting failed due to lack of quorum and was postponed to 24.07.2008. In the adjourned meeting, Gurdial Singh was proposed by Malkiat Kaur (Panch), seconded by Dalip Singh (Panch) and as such he was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved against the said election, the appellants filed the election petition with a sole grievance that no notice for the meeting dated 24.7.2008 was given to them. However, the said plea was not accepted by the learned Tribunal on the ground that all the members of the Panchayat had knowledge about the meeting which was fixed for 24.8.2008 in which all of them had participated but during the meeting Darshan Singh and Paramjit Kaur left the venue and did not return for about 35-40 minutes and in the meantime, election of Sarpanch was held. Again, the only point taken by learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal and canvassed before this Court is that when the first meeting dated 21.7.2008 failed due to lack of quorum, no notice was given by the Presiding Officer for holding the meeting on 24.7.2008 and in the absence of notice, the said meting was not valid in the eyes of law. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that only two appellants have been examined on oath as witness, who opened their cross-examination by stating that “we had received the notice of the election which was to be held on 24.7.2008.” “On 21.7.2008 they had appeared before BDPO, Bhikhi for the purpose of election but the election could not take place due to lack of quorum”. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. Undisputedly, quorum is required in the first meeting for election of the Sarpanch but in the second meeting quorum is not required. First meeting was held on 21.7.2008 to which there is no dispute. The failure of the said meeting due to lack of quorum is also not disputed. However, the whole dispute is with regard to the adjourned meeting held on 24.7.2008 regarding which the FAO No.5030 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - appellants’ complaint is that they were not served with any notice. In this case, the appellants claim is that they are four on one side and three on other side but out of four only two had entered into witness box and have categorically stated in their cross-examination that they had got the notice of meeting dated 24.7.2008. In view of admission, the appellants cannot be allowed to say that they were not intimated. The other two appellants namely, Paramjit Kaur and Darshan Singh did not enter the witness box being afraid of cross examination. In view of the finding recorded by the learned Election Tribunal, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 10.11.2010 JUDGE Vivek