IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.946 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2011 Rajindero. -----Appellant. Vs. Manjit Kaur & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Anil Ratheee, Addl.A.G., Haryana. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 by quashing the declaration of the appellant as being elected to the post of Sarpanch and declaring the writ petitioner to be elected to the said office. 2. The election to the post of Sarpanch of Village Jolly, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala was held on 12.6.2010. The counting of votes of polling booths No.136 and 137 duly recorded in the prescribed forms is as follows:- Votes of the appellant - 172 and 266 Votes of respondent/writ petitioner - 349 and 378. L.P.A. No.946 of 2010 However, in the result sheet, by misreading the said figures the result was shown as under:- Votes of the appellant - 349 + 266 = 615 Votes of respondent/ - 172 + 378 = 550 writ petitioner 3. The writ petitioner challenged the result by submitting that there was a fraud and manipulation in compiling the result by misreading the figures of votes polled by the appellant and the writ petitioner. The writ petition was contested on the ground that the remedy of the writ petitioner was to apply for recounting of votes. 4. Learned Single Judge rejected the objection on the maintainability of the writ petitioner and held that the result sheet was clearly manipulated and was against the record. The finding is as under:- “This plea on the face of it deserves to be rejected, as it is not even the case, of respondent No.7 that correction was required as there was any clerical error. It is very sorry state of affairs, that the State is trying to protect an officer, who is prima facie guilty of tampering with the result sheets and has declared the candidate having less number of votes as a winning candidate. It is because of such stand of the State that the officers are encouraged to commit such illegalities, which are patent on the face of record. In view of the facts stated above, specially keeping in view the fact that the result sheet of 2 L.P.A. No.946 of 2010 counting of votes, placed on record does show that Manjit Kaur had polled 378 votes in booth No.137, and 349 votes in booth No.136, which leaves no manner of doubt that the result sheets was a result of manipulation, to help the loosing candidate. The result sheets placed on record clearly show that Manjit Kaur had polled the highest number of votes, than other two candidates.” 5. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the writ petitioner was declared elected, setting aside the declaration granted in favour of the appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is patent from the record that the votes polled by the writ petitioner are higher than the votes polled by the appellant. There is no issue of recount of votes. Question is only of correctly compilation of figures of votes polled as per record. Learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the stand of the writ petitioner. 8. No ground is, thus, made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 05, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3