IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12091 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th August, 2010 Kavita Jain and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for Smt.Vina Rani. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 9364 of 2010 CM is allowed and exemption from filing certified copy of the proceedings of the special meeting is granted. Civil Misc. No. 9363 of 2010 CM is allowed. The proceedings of special meeting along with the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 are taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.12091 of 2010 A coordinate Bench on 15th July, 2010, had passed the following order: “… … …From the perusal of letter dated 12.7.2010, it is clear that election was held on 7.7.2010. It is also clear that Civil Writ Petition No.12091 of 2010 there were only two candidates i.e. Smt. Vina Rani and Smt. Sadhna – petitioner No.11. However, letter shows that both the candidates secured 16 votes each. As per learned Counsel for the petitioners, 33 exercised their votes. This letter is silent about one vote. Considering the total facts and circumstances, I deem it proper to direct the respondent No.3 to place entire original record of the election/meeting held on 7.7. 2010 before the Court on 19.7.2010. … …” In pursuance thereto, Jagnivas, Returning Officer, Sonepat has brought a sealed cover containing votes in this Court today. On orders of this Court, sealed cover was opened. Election for the post of President of Municipal Council, Sonepat was held and 33 votes were polled. The Returning Officer rejected one vote and held that both the candidates had secured 16 votes each and therefore, rule 72 of the Haryana Election Rules, 1978 was to be invoked, and the successful candidate was to be declared after draw of lots. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has submitted that in case, a draw of lots is held in the presence of an independent Observer, he will withdraw the present petition. It is stated that due to influence of the ruling party, Deputy Commissioner of the District is not acting independently. To controvert this assertion, Mr.Narender Hooda, Sr. Additional Advocate General Haryana, has stated that to ensure free and fair poll, they themselves will offer that a draw of lots be held in the presence of a retired Judge of this Court. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate has also supported Mr.Hooda. During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties have formulated above said consensus. Counsel for the parties have jointly suggested that Shri A.L. Bahri, retired Judge of this Court be appointed as an Observer. Counsel 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12091 of 2010 for the parties have further suggested that remuneration of the Observer be fixed at Rs.55,000/- along with the expenses of conveyance, boarding and lodging. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall bear all the expenses. The petitioner, after depositing the amount with the Observer, within three days shall intimate the Returning Officer, who thereafter following due procedure, shall fix the date of meeting for the draw of lots and the draw of lots shall be conducted in presence of the Observer. The District Administration shall make all required arrangement and also ensure necessary security so that no law-and-order problem occurs. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between the parties, as prayed, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 4, 2010 rps 3