Dismissed

Surinder Singh v. Gurmeet Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2009FAO/1/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an Election Tribunal order that set aside the appellant's election as Sarpanch. The Court held that the Returning Officer misinformed candidates that only SC males could contest the reserved seat, thereby depriving the female respondent of her right to contest, and upheld the order for a fresh election.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order of Tribunal setting aside appellant's election and directing fresh election upheld.

Surinder Singh Vs Gurmeet Kaur and Anr. — Election Law | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO No.1 of 2009

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: 21.5.2009

Surinder Singh

..Appellant.

Vs.

Smt.Gurmeet Kaur and another

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶14

The present appeal is directed against the order passed by ADC-cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amloh, Sub Division, District Fatehgarh Sahib whereby Election Petition filed by respondent (Gurmeet Kaur) under Section 76 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short `the Act') has been allowed.

¶15

Broadly, the facts of the case are that the respondent (Gurmeet Kaur) was elected as Panch of Gram Sabha Rupalheri, Block and Tehsil Bassi Pattana, District Fatehgarh Sahib in the category of Scheduled Caste (for short `SC') women. The appellant (Surinder Singh) was also elected Panch in the SC category. The post of Sarpanch of Gram Sabha was reserved for a SC . The election for the post of Sarpanch was conducted on 16.7.2008 in which four Panches had participated namely, Amrik Singh,

¶16

FAO No.1 of 2009

¶17

-2 -

¶18

Sukhdev Singh, Gurmeet Kaur and Paramjit Kaur but no one could be elected because of the lack of quorum and the election was postponed for 18.7.2008. On that day, all the seven Member Panchayats of Gram Sabha were present. In that election, Returning Officer (respondent No.2) declared that post of Sarpanch is meant for SC candidate and the appellant is the only SC Panch. As a result of which, respondent No.1 and the other members, who were supporting her, walked out from the meeting and thereafter, the respondent No.2 declared the appellant as an elected Sarpanch but the result was not announced. Respondent No.1 along with other three Panches namely, Amrik Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Paramjit Kaur filed a Writ Petition No.13598 of 2008 in this Court with a prayer that majority of the Panches are supporting her, therefore, she should be elected as Sarpanch. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.8.2008 with the following order:

¶19

“This petition is disposed of with a direction to the Presiding Officer to declare the result of the election of Sarpanch to enable the petitioners to file an election petition to challenge that order.”

¶20

Pursuant to the order of this Court, result of the election was declared and the appellant was shown to have been elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This led to filing of the Election Petition by respondent No.1 under Section 76 of the Act in which it was inter alia alleged that at the time when the proceedings were started in meeting held on 18.7.2008. The Returning Officer (respondent No.2) had announced that post of Sarpanch is reserved for SC quota for which only Male SC can contest the election and no other person or woman can contest the said

¶21

FAO No.1 of 2009

¶22

-3 -

¶23

election. It was further alleged that in this manner, respondent No.1 has been deprived off her legal right to contest and when she along with her supporter Panches walked out from the meeting out of anguish, the Returning Officer (respondent No.2) declared the appellant as elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The Election Petition was contested by the respondent in which issues were framed and both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal found that Returning Officer did not properly apprise the members regarding the SC reserved seat and declared the appellant as Sarpanch being SC Male whereas the remaining four members were not in his favour and the said four panchayat members did not put their signatures on the said resolution and walked out of the meeting. The Tribunal, thus, set aside the election of the appellant and ordered for holding a fresh election in accordance with law. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.11.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court in which it has been, inter alia, urged that evidence available on record has been misread by the Tribunal inasmuch as Returning Officer had never stated that only SC Male can contest the election and as there is a categoric denial by the Returning Officer (respondent No.2) that he had not stopped respondent No.1 to contest the said election, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse.

¶24

On the contrary learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that vide Ex.P6, the State of Punjab had issued a notification dated 27.5.2008 to clarify that all Panches belonging to reserved category (SC), can contest the election to the post of Sarpanch if the said post is to be filled from SC category. Similarly the Panch belonging to SC category can contest

¶25

FAO No.1 of 2009

¶26

-4 -

¶27

the election in the General category and General (Women), Panch can also contest election of Sarpanch in the General category. On the basis of Ex.P6, counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that Returning Officer had the knowledge that the post of Sarpanch is meant for both SC Male and Female but while appearing as RW6 the Returning Officer had categorically stated in his cross-examination that he had never stopped any male or female panch from becoming Sarpanch. He declared at the spot that a Panch who has come from the SC quota, only can become Sarpanch. In the SC quota Surinder Singh Panch was present, in the women quota Gurmit Kaur, Panch was present, in the SC quota except Surinder Singh, there was no other Panch. Counsel for respondent No.1 has further submitted that as Returning Officer had categorically admitted in his cross examination that he had declared that the seat of Sarpanch is to be filled in from SC quota only and Surinder Singh has been elected as Sarpanch in the said quota, the respondent No.1 was deprived off from contesting the election and out of seven members, four members walked out from the meeting and taking advantage the present appellant was declared as Sarpanch. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that majority of respondent No.1 is writ large from the documents available on record because she filed a writ petition and all the four members were with her who had complained about the manner in which election was conducted and also four persons were together when they appeared on 16.7.2008 but that meeting failed due to lack of quorum. It is submitted that had all the members were present on that day in the meeting dated 16.7.2008 and the respondent would have been allowed her to contest the election in the category of Sarpanch (SC), she would have been definitely elected as Sarpanch even on that day.

¶28

FAO No.1 of 2009

¶29

-5 -

¶30

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is just in accordance with the evidence available on record. No doubt it is an admitted fact on record that vide Ex.P6, both Male and Female Panch from SC category were allowed to contest for the post of a Sarpanch in SC category. It is also admitted fact that out of seven, four members were on the side of respondent No.1. It is also not disputed in the first meeting that all the four members were together and had attended the meeting only for the purpose of election. It is also admitted and it has come in the cross examination of RW6 Mahesh Kapur, Returning Officer that he had declared at the spot that Panch who has come from SC quota only can contest to become Sarpanch and in the SC quota except Surinder Singh there was no other Panch.

¶31

From these facts available on record, it can very well be ascertained as to what had happened on the day when the meeting had taken place on 18.7.2008. Respondent No.1 was definitely deprived of by Returning Officer to contest the election by giving an impression that only SC Male has a right to contest the election and not SC Female.

¶32

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶33

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶34

21.5.2009 Meenu

Surinder Singh v. Gurmeet Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. Gurmeet Kaur and Anr.

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

S. Bala Subramanian Vs State of Punjab

Ishwar Dharra Vs Dhanno Devi

M/S Jagat Roller Flour Mills Vs Pb. St. Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd.

Pritu Vs Stat Eo of Haryana and Ors.

Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs Collector, Land Acquisition and Anr.

E S I C Chandigarh Vs M/S Nova Security Services P Ltd. and Anr.