F.A.O. No.4448 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... F.A.O. No.4448 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 18, 2011 Balwant Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Gurdev Singh Virk and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.A.S.Manaise, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Kahlon, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') filed by the petitioners (appellant Balwant Singh along with Harbhajan Singh respondent No.7 herein) whereby their election petition under Sections 74 and 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 read with Rule 51 of the Punjab Panchayat Election of Rules, 1994 was dismissed on the ground that they failed to produce any evidence on the record. The case of the appellant in brief is that there were seven F.A.O. No.4448 of 2010 2 seats for the office of Panches to be elected by the electoral of Village Manepur, Block Kalanaur. Four seats have already been filed forcibly without election as the election official wrongly rejected the nomination papers. For remaining three seats applications were invited from contending candidates to be filled before the Returning Officer i.e. respondent No.1 upto 06.01.2009 for the election to be conducted on 18.01.2009. Both the petitioners went to the office of respondents No.1 and 2 at about 2.30 P.M. with their nomination papers but the same were not accepted under political pressure. Regarding this, the petitioners filed complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur and to the Election Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioners have also alleged that respondents No.1 and 2 declared respondents No.3 to 5 as winning candidates under the pressure of local MLA. It was alleged that entire election procedure conducted by the respondent Returning Officer was illegal, unfair, unconstitutional, null and void and the same is liable to be set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the election petition and pleaded that proper procedure was adopted in conducting election of Gram Panchayat, Manepur and respondents No.3 to 5 were declared elected candidates. Respondent No.1 in his reply has pleaded that the election of Village Manepur conducted by the Returning Officer was fair, legal and as per procedure and the candidates, who has contested the election were declared as winning candidates and there was no political pressure of any authority as alleged by the petitioners. Respondents No.3 to 5 appeared in person on 18.05.2009 but failed to appear later on in the proceedings and they were proceeded against ex parte on 13.07.2009. F.A.O. No.4448 of 2010 3 After appreciating the evidence led by the petitioners, the only reasoning given by the Tribunal while dismissing the petition is that the petitioners have not produced any evidence or proof that the nomination papers were not accepted by the Returning Officer. In support of this contention, both the petitioners appeared in the Court and made a statement but the same has not been believed and the petition has been dismissed filed by the petitioners. Against this order, only appellant Balwant Singh has come in appeal, which is now meant for disposal. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that apart from statement, the appellant has also proved and produced on record Exhibits P2 and P3, which have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. This Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion has observed as under: “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum- Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur is totally perverse, wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant did not lead any evidence except his own statement, whereas the fact is that after the non-acceptance of the nomination papers of the appellant he had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur on January 06, 2009 and made a representation to the Election Commissioner, Punjab Chandigarh on 09.01.2009. Both the documents have been proved and produced on record as Ex.P2 and P3. The aforesaid documents have not even been referred in the impugned order what to talk of their consideration. Notice in the application for condonation of delay for 17.03.2011. Record of the Tribunal be also called.” F.A.O. No.4448 of 2010 4 I have gone through the file apart from the statement made by the appellant. He has put reliance on the documents Ex.P1 to P3 which to my mind were necessary for the purposes of decision of this case. As these documents are required to be taken into consideration before passing the final order, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 01.12.2011. Record complete in all respects be also sent to the Tribunal forthwith. November 18, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE