Dismissed

Kashmir Singh and Ors. v. Pb. St. Election Commission and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2008CWP/12543/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Panchas challenging Sarpanch election was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file election petition within three weeks. Court directed Election Tribunal to decide the election petition on merits expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file election petition within three weeks; Election Tribunal directed to decide election petition on merits expeditiously.

Kashmir Singh and Ors. Vs Pb. St. Election Commission… — Election Law | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 12543 of 2008

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 09.09.2008

¶4

Kashmir Singh and others

¶5

.... PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶12

Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶13

¶14

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

¶15

The petitioners, who are 4 out of 7 Panches of Gram Panchayat, village Kaile Kalan, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of respondent No.6 as Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, being illegal, null and void, who was elected as Sarpanch in the meeting held on 16.7.2008.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioners that though the meeting dated 16.7.2008 was attended by 6 Panches, but one Panch, namely Sukhwinder Singh – petitioner No.3, was not permitted to attend the said meeting. In

¶17

CWP No. 12543 of 2008

¶18

-2-

¶19

that meeting, respondent No.6 was illegally declared elected as Sarpanch by majority of the Panches. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.4, who attended the meeting, did not cast vote in favour of respondent No.6, but her signatures were forged.

¶20

Written statement on behalf of respondent No.6 has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record and its copy has been handed over to counsel for the petitioners.

¶21

In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners have the alternative remedy to challenge the election of respondent No.6 as Sarpanch, by filing election petition.

¶22

We have heard counsel for the parties.

¶23

In view of the preliminary objection raised by respondents No.2 to 4 and the fact that the disputed questions of facts are involved, counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of election petition. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the instant petition was filed after 5 days of the election and now the period of limitation for filing election petition has expired, therefore, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, (1996) 6 SCC 199, the petitioners may be permitted to file election petition within three weeks from today and in case election petition is filed within three weeks, the same may be directed to be heard on merits by the Election

¶24

CWP No. 12543 of 2008

¶25

-3-

¶26

Tribunal.

¶27

Counsel for respondent No.6 states that he has no objection if the petitioners are permitted to file election petition.

¶28

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an election petition under Section 76 read with Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, challenging the election of respondent No.6.

¶29

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶30

If the election petition is filed by the petitioners within a period

¶31

of three weeks from today, the Election Tribunal is directed to entertain and decide the same on merits, expeditiously.

¶32

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 09, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj/ndj JUDGE

Kashmir Singh and Ors. v. Pb. St. Election Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Singh and Ors. v. Pb. St. Election Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

UOI Vs Jai Sahib Punchouty

Karamjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur and Anr.

Chamkaur Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jog Raj Sharma Vs State of Punjab etc.

Vijay Rao Vs State of Haryana and Ors.