CWP No. 14083 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 14083 of 2008 Date of decision: January 19,2011 Lakhwinder Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8. Mr. Mehtab Singh, Advocate for respondent No.9 ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat Elections, the petitioners along with private-respondents were elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat of village Bhittewad, Block Harsha Chhina, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioners claimed that on 17.7.2008, first meeting of the Panches, was convened to elect the Sarpanch out of 9 elected Panches. It was adjourned on the ground of incomplete quorum, vide letter (Annexure P-1). The next meeting to elect the Sarpanch, scheduled on 21.7.2008 at 10 A.M. was again postponed on the ground that notices were not actually served to all the elected members panchayat. CWP No. 14083 of 2008 2 3. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as the relevant, was that on 21.7.2008, petitioners received the notice (Annexure P-2) of the meeting to elect the Sarpanch, scheduled to be held on 23.7.2008 at 2 P.M. in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer,(for short' “B.D.P.O”.) Harsha Chhina. Apprehending some malpractice in the election, petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar on 22.7.2008, vide application (Annexure P- 3) to appoint an observer to conduct the election of Sarpanch scheduled to be held on 23.7.2008 at 2 P.M. in the office of B.D.P.O. It was claimed that although (respondent No.8) an observer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, (respondent No.4) and the petitioners were present on the scheduled date on 23.7.2008 at 2 P.M. as per the notice, in the office of BDPO, but neither the Presiding/Returning Officer, nor Panchayat Secretary nor private respondents/Panches came present there, in order to frustrate the election of Sarpanch on the basis of majority. The matter was reported to Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer in this respect, vide letter (Annexure P-4). 4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the earlier CWP No. 13016 of 2008 filed by the petitioners, came to be disposed of, in terms of the general directions, issued by this Court, in CWP No.12694 of 2008 titled as Gurmeet Singh Versus State of Punjab, directing the respondents to allow the elected Panch members to exercise their franchise and to hold the elections in free and fair manner. The petitioners were stated to have handed over the copy of the order of this court to the Deputy Commissioner, but still he (Deputy Commissioner) has openly refused to convene the fresh meeting to elect the Sarpanch. The apprehension of the petitioners that the official respondents under the political pressure/influence intended to secretly elect Sarpanch, amongst private respondent Nos.9 to 12, subsequently came to be true in this regard. CWP No. 14083 of 2008 3 5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioners that official respondents were not convening the meeting to elect Sarpanch as they wanted to secretly select the Sarpanch amongst private respondent Nos.9 to 12 under political pressure. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, petitioners filed the instant writ petition for directions to the respondents to allow the petitioners to elect petitioner No.1 as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of majority in the manner indicated herein above. 6. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 filed their joint written statement, while respondent No.6 and private respondent No.9 Satnam Singh filed their respective written statements, inter alia pleading that the election of the Sarpanch of the village has already been held on 23.7.2008 at 12 P.M. and notified on 12.8.2008(Annexure R-6/1). The petitioners were stated to have been duly informed through prior notices that the election for the post of Sarpanch will be held on 23.7.2008 at 12 P.M. vide notice (Annexure R-6/2). As petitioners were not present and only respondent Nos.9 to 12 were present at the appointed time and place therefore, they selected Satnam Singh, respondent No.9 as Sarpanch of the village. The election of respondent No. 9 was stated to be valid and proper. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter. To my mind the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 8. As is evident from the record, that the petitioners claimed that official respondents wanted to select the Sarpanch amongst the private respondent Nos.9 to 12 under political pressure. They issued notice to them(petitioners) to convene the meeting on 23.7.2008 at 2 P.M.(not at 12 P.M.) and when they reached the scheduled place and time along with the observer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, neither the respondents No.9 to 12 nor any Presiding Officer was present there to elect the Sarpanch. On the contrary, according to the respondents, the meeting was convened on 23.7.2008 at CWP No. 14083 of 2008 4 12 P.M. and Satnam Singh respondent No.9 was duly elected as Sarpanch of the village in the indicated scheduled meeting. 9. Thus, it would be seen that the facts of the case are neither intricate nor much disputed. in this manner, the core controversy boils down to a very narrow compass, as to whether the official respondents issued notices to the petitioners of the meeting to be convened at 2 P.M.(as claimed by the petitioners) or at 12 P.M. (as urged by respondents) on 23.7.2008, to elect the Sarpanch. In order to resolve the controversy involved and to ascertain the truth or otherwise, in the counter stands taken by the parties, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ajai Lamba, J) passed the following order on 15.1.2009 in the presence of learned counsel for the parties:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the notice in original that indicates that the petitioners were asked to come for election on 23.7.2008 at 2.00 P.M. whereas, it has been asserted that respondents No. 9 to 12 were issued notice to come for the same purpose at 12.00 noon. Under the circumstances the controversy boils down to the fact whether notice to elect Sarpanch given to the petitioners was different as against that given to respondents No. 9 to 12, to defeat the right of the petitioners to take part in election and elect a Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the Returning Officer who is present in Court today namely, Shri Balwinder Singh, respondent No.6, has been charge sheeted for improper conduct of election. Deputy Commissioner Amritsar is directed to hold an inquiry into the controversy and file a report before this court along with his affidavit. Copy of the pleadings would be given to the Deputy Commissioner by the parties. The parties are required to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 27.1.2009. The inquiry be conducted and concluded within 30 days thereof. The report be filed before this Court by 10.3.2009. The record in original is being returned after retaining the photo copy of the record in sealed cover. In case different time has been given, the Deputy Commissioner would also give out the remedial measures that are proposed to be taken, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Adjourned to 10.3.2009.” CWP No. 14083 of 2008 5 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar (respondent No.4) submitted his inquiry report dated 21.4.2009, the operative part of which is as under:- “That I have considered the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The main point is to be decided whether notice to elect the Sarpanch given to the petitioners was different as against given to Respondent Nos. R9 to R12. The petitioners have produced the notice exhibit P6, which was delivered to them for the purpose. On this notice, the time of meeting is 2.00 PM. As they had apprehension regarding disturbance in meeting on part of the Contesting Respondents, they had requested for appointment of observer to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar vide their application Mark A for 2.00 P.M. on 23.7.08. Further as per copy of the Roznamcha of Police Station Raja Sansi exhibit P3, (P8), Gurtinder Singh SI/SHO started for election duty to Block Harsha Chhin at 2.00 P.M. on 23.7.2008 and further as per rapat No.11 of Police Post Kukerawala exhibit P3A (Exhibit P7), the police party started for election duty at 1.30 PM. This fortifies the contention of the petitioners that they were given time for meeting of 2.00 PM not 12.00 Noon as claimed by Respondent No.R9 to R12. The possibility of manipulation in the copy of notice Exhibit P4 cannot be ruled out and it was also proved by the report of Observer that Returning Officer and election staff did not reach at Block Harsha Chhina on 23.7.2008 at 2.00 P.M. The original copy of notice exhibit P4 has not been produced by the Returning Officer. By going through the copy of the notice exhibit P4 and original notice exhibit P6, it is established that different times were given to the petitioners and Respondents 9 to 12 for election of Sarpanch. So, the petitioners were deprived of their right to take part in the election of Sarpanch. Had the time given to petitioners was 12 noon as contended by R9 to R12, the petitioners would have asked for appointment of observer for 12.00 Noon instead of 2.00 P.M. On 23.7.08, the police parties also started for election duty at 1.30 P.M. And 2.00 P.M. and not before 12.00 Noon. Had the time been 12.00 Noon there was no reason for the petitioners to go to the venue of meeting at 2.00 PM, as they had majority of Panches with them. That in these circumstances, in order to give chance to the CWP No. 14083 of 2008 6 petitioners, the Hon'ble High Court may fix a new date for election of Sarpanch after appointing BDPO, Harsha Chhina or District Development and Panchayat Officer as Returning Officer.” The contents of the report of Deputy Commissioner were not controverted in any manner by the respondents. 11. Meaning thereby it stands proved on record that the official respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and private respondent Nos.9 to 13 have not only violated the statutory provisions of the Act but prepared a false record of election of Sarpanch, Satnam Singh (respondent No.9), as well, forged the record, used the same as genuine in the Court, violated the law with impunity and attempted to defend a totally non-existent cause in the Court in order to frustrate the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, on the basis of majority, which is the basic unit of the democracy. Thus, they have committed fraud on the Constitution and the Act for the reasons best known to them. 12. As strange as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of violating the law with impunity by the government officers, have been tremendously increasing day by day in the society, leaving the Courts in lurch to deal with such situations, culminating in the huge pendency of the litigation. If Government officers have started indulging in such heinous crimes then there will be no end of anything. This tendency, in my view, deserves to be curbed with heavy hand in this relevant connection. Therefore, the forged proceedings/resolution (Annexure R9/3) cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is hereby accepted with exemplary costs of ` 1 lac. Consequently, the farce election of Sarpanch by virtue of the impugned proceedings/resolution (Annexure R-9/3) is hereby set aside. The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.4) is directed to convene a fresh meeting to elect the Sarpanch afresh in accordance with law. The entire process of election be completed within a period of one month positively from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. At the same time, respondent No.1 is directed to (i) hold an inquiry into the entire gamut (matter), (ii) fix the responsibility and to initiate appropriate CWP No. 14083 of 2008 7 departmental disciplinary proceedings and (iii) to recover the proportionate costs of ` 1 lac from the erring respondent/persons and to deposit the same in the account of Punjab Legal Services Authority. He may also consider the desirability of initiating the criminal prosecution against the erring respondent/persons in this relevant connection, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to this Court. 15. The Registry is directed to send the copies of this order to official respondents forthwith for its compliance. January 19,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No CWP No. 14083 of 2008 8