Court held writ of quo warranto not maintainable as election dispute is sub judice. Disposed of petition with direction to Election Tribunal to decide matter expeditiously within four months.
Disposed of petition with direction to Respondent No. 3 to dispose election petition within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP. No. 11654 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.8.2009.
Kulwant Singh and others
--Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.
Present:Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)
Notice of motion.
Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents-State.
Respondent no.4 was elected as Sarpanch in the election held in the year 2005. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent no.4 by way of election petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. The Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner) decided the election petition vide order dated 12.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) and declared respondent no.4 as disqualified from contesting the election and ordered his removal. The order passed by the Election Tribunal was challenged in an appeal and the Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the Election Tribunal. While the matter is still pending before the Election Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of quo warranto for removal of respondent no.4.
Admittedly, it is an election dispute and the question whether respondent no.4 was eligible or disqualified for contesting election is subjudiced before the competent forum.
CWP. No. 11654 of 2009
-2-
Under these circumstances, no writ of quo warranto is maintainable. There is another prayer for a direction to the Election Tribunal to decide the election petition. In so far the second prayer is concerned, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to dispose the election petition pending before it expeditiously, preferably within four
months.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
12.8.2009 lucky
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable when the eligibility for election is sub judice before the Election Tribunal.
Whether the Election Tribunal must dispose of the pending election petition expeditiously.
Kulwant Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
PERMOD KOHLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
