FAO No.5682 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5682 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.02.2011 Raghbir Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Jaspal Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short “the Tribunal”), dismissing the election petition filed by the appellants, challenging the election of respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ladhupur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that first meeting of the elected Panches for election of Sarpanch was convened on 18.07.2008. Though the appellants and the respondents were present but still the meeting was not held. The appellants were orally informed that the meeting had been adjourned to 19.07.2008, however, no notice in writing was received by the appellants in this regard. The appellants were present at the scheduled place of meeting from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. but no meeting was held. Later on, they came to know that respondent No.1 was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that as the appellants were not permitted to participate in the meeting, though they were in majority, the election of respondent No.1 as Sarpanch be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the election petition filed by the appellants was not FAO No.5682 of 2009 2 maintainable as such on account of violation of 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 himself in person. In the present case, election petition has been filed by the appellants through their counsel, as is evident from record. 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 submission 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 in Manjit Kaur Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, and others, 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 784. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. Before proceeding, to consider the issue raised by learned counsel for the appellants on merit, I deem it appropriate to deal with the primary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the election petition itself. Perusal of the record of the election petition filed by the appellants before the Tribunal shows that it was presented by the counsel for the appellants and the appellants were not present. In terms of Gurlal Singh’s and Manjit Kaur’s cases (supra) an election petition, which has not been filed by the election petitioner in person, is liable to be dismissed. No judgment taking contrary view has been cited. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. As the election petition filed by the appellants itself was not maintainable having not been presented by the petitioners before the Tribunal in person, other pleas sought to be raised by the appellants on merits are not required to be considered. The election petition had been dismissed by the Tribunal on different ground, however, the order passed by the Tribunal is upheld. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 09.02.2011 sharmila