Quashed

Parveen Sethi v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2009CWP/10195/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an election petition filed by Dr. Parveen Sethi. The dismissal was criticized for violating natural justice principles by failing to provide notice or a hearing to the petitioner before rejecting his appeal against his election challenge.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.02.2008 dismissing the election petition is set aside, and the competent authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording proper hearing to both parties.

Parveen Sethi Vs Union of India and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CWP No.10195 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No.10195 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.08.2009

Dr. Parveen Sethi

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Union of India and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

¶11

Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Anjum Ahmad, Addl. A. G., Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

¶15

JASBIR SINGH J. (ORAL)

¶16

By filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 23.7.2007 (P-12) declaring respondent No.4 as an elected member of Dental Council of India and further challenging the order dated 05.02.2008 (P-15) by which, the election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

As per election schedule, last date for receipt of nomination papers and scrutiny thereof was 20.06.2007 and last date for withdrawal of nomination was fixed for 29.6.2007. Voting was through postal ballot, as per schedule dispatch of voting papers was to begin on 06.07.2007, if need

¶19

CWP No.10195 of 2008

¶20

-2-

¶21

be. Last date for receipt of ballot/voting papers was fixed for 20.07.2007 and counting was fixed for 23.07.2007. Before the last date of receipt of ballot papers i.e. 20.07.2007 many complaints were made to the Returning Officer stating that the ballot papers had not reached the electors rather those had been collected by agent of the candidates in between. A prayer was made that fresh voting papers be issued to the electors, however, due to paucity of time that prayer was not accepted. On 23.07.2007, respondent No.4 was declared as a winning candidate.

¶22

The petitioner filed an Election Petition/Representation as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Dentists Act, 1948, Government of Haryana. Without, even dealing with the issues raised by the petitioner and giving opportunity of hearing, election petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2008 (Annexure P-15). Hence, this petition.

¶23

It is not disputed that when the election process was going on, the Returning Officer, respondent No.3 sent a letter to the State of Haryana on 18.07.2007 indicating that the voting papers had not reached many electors and due to paucity of time fresh voting papers could not be issued. He recommended that the matter be taken up by the Central Government for fresh election. Relevant portion of the letter mentioned above reads thus:-

¶24

“Some complaints have been received in the office of undersigned that the ballot papers are being obtained/collected by the agents of the candidates before being delivered to the electors. Most of the electors have been received voting and other connected papers so far. All these malafide intentions are defeating the basic purpose of free and fair election.

¶25

CWP No.10195 of 2008

¶26

-3-

¶27

It is also intimated that on 16.7.2007 and 17.7.2007 more than 208 electors have applied for issuance of fresh voting and other connected papers under regulation 11 Section 4 of the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952. At this stage, if fresh voting papers are to be issued then it will not be possible that papers may receive back up to the fixed date. The last date of receipt of voting papers has already been fixed 20.07.2007 upto 5.00 P.M.”

¶28

After considering the above said facts and looking into the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and Regulation 20 of the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952, the Returning Officer further commented as under:-

¶29

“....In the circumstances explained above, it is suggested that the Central Govt. may be requested to set aside the election process under the above said section, because it is not possible to issue fresh voting papers to the electors who had applied till date due to shortage of time as the last date of receipt of voting papers through registered post (As per Act) has already been fixed 20.07.2007 upto 5.00 P.M.

¶30

¶31

It is also suggested that Govt. may allow that all the electors be issued fresh voting papers through Registered/Speed Post instead of UPC by treating cancel the voting papers already issued to them on 06.07.2007,

¶32

CWP No.10195 of 2008

¶33

-4-

¶34

by extending the date of Poll. In this way all the electors will have equal opportunity to cast their votes.”

¶35

It is not disputed that when the election petition was taken up for consideration, no notice was sent to the petitioner. A report was called from the Returning Officer and the election petition was dismissed. It was a clear violation of the principle of natural justice. The report of the Returning Officer on which reliance was placed to dismiss the election petition, the petitioner was never confronted with the same. As to what was mentioned in that report and how it deals with the issue of collection of voting papers by agents of the candidates before those papers reached the electors is not explained. Report earlier made by the Returning Officer vide letter dated 18.07.2007 (P-7) is self explanatory. After looking into that report, this Court feels that order passed by the competent authority, rejecting the same is not justified.

¶36

In view of the above order rejecting the election petition, filed by the petitioner can not be sustained and accordingly order dated 05.02.2008 (P-15) is set aside. The competent authority is directed to decide appeal, filed by the petitioner afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶37

The parties are directed to appear before the competent authority on 15.09.2009. The election petition shall be decided thereafter within a period of three months.

¶38

This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE

¶40

August 11, 2009 ashish

Parveen Sethi v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Sethi v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Darbara Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

R.P.Aggrwal and Anr. Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ii Chd and Ors.

Zile Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ram Sarup and Anr. Vs HUDA and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs HUDA and Anr.