Remanded

Satpal Singh v. Daljit Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2010FAO/1960/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed appeals against an Election Tribunal order. The single-judge bench held that the Tribunal violated Section 81 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 by failing to follow CPC procedures, specifically omitting opportunities for written statements and evidence led even. The order dated 02.7.2008 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to th

What did the court decide?

The order dated 2.7.2008 is set aside. The case is remanded to the Election Tribunal for afresh decision in accordance with Section 81 of the Act and CPC, with parties directed to appear by 15.2.2010.

Satpal Singh Vs Daljit Kaur and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

FAO No.1960 of 2008 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶4

Decided on 22.1.2010.

¶5

Satpal Singh --Appellant vs.

¶6

Daljit Kaur and others --Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶8

Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta,Advocate, for the appellant

¶9

Mr. K.S.Boparai,Advocate,for the respondents

¶10

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral)

¶11

This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO No.1960 of 2008 ( Satpal Singh Vs. Daljit Kaur and others) and FAO No.1963 of 2008 (Daljit Kaur Vs. Satpal Singh and others), which are filed against the order of Election Tribunal dated 02.7.2008, whereby an election petition filed by Daljit Kaur against Satpal Singh and others under Sections 74 and 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994( for short,'the Act') for setting aside the election of Satpal Singh respondent No.2. from the post of Panch of village Shergarh, District Fatehgarh, was allowed and election of Manjit Kaur as Lady Panch was set aside and she was declared elected as Panch in the General Category ,whereas seat of Lady Panch of Gram Panchayat Shergarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, was declared vacant.

¶12

Aggrieved against the order of the Election Tribunal, both the election petitioners as well as respondent No.2. Satpal Singh have preferred

¶13

¶14

FAO No.1960 of 2008 (O&M)

¶15

the present appeals in which both of them have raised the same objection that no procedure has been followed by the Election Tribunal before passing the impugned order.

¶16

For the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties, the facts are extracted from FAO No. 1960 of 2008 (Satpal Singh Vs. Daljit Kaur and others).

¶17

Mr.P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in terms of the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, the Election Tribunal is required to follow the procedure as provided in the C.P.C. for the purpose of election of Panch, but in the present case, without there being any written statement on record, the Tribunal has framed issue and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute, the election petition has been decided on 02.7.2008.

¶18

It is submitted that first date in the election petition was 2.6.2008 in which notice was issued for 12.6.2008 when the respondent i.e. present appellant Satpal Singh had appeared and the case was adjourned to 17.6.2008 for arguments. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 25.6.2008 for framing of issues which were framed and on 1.7.2008 and the case was listed for order which was ultimately pronounced on 02.7.2008.

¶19

Similar arguments have been raised by Mr.K.S.Boparai, who is pursuing FAO No.1963 of 2008.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Before adverting to the merits of the case, relevant provisions of Act may be noticed.

¶21

Section 81 of the Act is reproduced below: -

¶22

“Procedure before the Election Tribunal. - (1) Subject to the

¶23

¶24

FAO No.1960 of 2008 (O&M)

¶25

provisions of this Act and of the rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Election Tribunal, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) to the trial of suits:

¶26

Provided that the Election Tribunal shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses is not, if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of the election petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings of the election petition. (2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition”.

¶27

In the aforesaid provisions, it is clearly provided that subject to provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Election Tribunal, in accordance with the procedure in the C.P.C. for the trial of the suits. The procedure contained in the C.P.C. is that after filing of the plaint, opportunity is given to the defendant for filing his written statement and if a new averment is made therein, then opportunity is granted to the plaintiff for the purpose of filing replication. On the pleadings of the parties, issues are framed and opportunity is granted to both the parties for leading their oral as well as documentary evidence. The aforesaid procedure admittedly has not been followed by the Election Tribunal in this case as after the appearance of the defendant, no opportunity was granted to him to file written statement and the case was fixed for arguments for 17.6.2008 and then to 19.6.2008 and thereafter it

¶28

¶29

FAO No.1960 of 2008 (O&M)

¶30

was adjourned to 25.6.2008 for framing of issues and after framing of issues, no opportunity was granted to the parties to lis allowing them to lead evidence. Thereafter on 1.7.2008, the case was listed for arguments and order was announced on 2.7.2008.

¶31

Thus, I am satisfied that the learned Tribunal was remiss in its order, which has caused manifest injustice to the parties to the lis as they could not prove their case by leading cogent evidence. Hence, the order dated 2.7.2008 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Election Tribunal, to decide it afresh, in accordance with law much-less Section 81 of the Act by giving adequate opportunities to both the sides for leading their oral as well as documentary evidence.

¶32

Before parting with the order, it is made clear that this order shall not effect the election of Manjit Kaur, who is working as Sarpanch, till the matter is decided by the Election tribunal.

¶33

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib on 15.2.2010, who shall make all endeavour to decide the election petition as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

¶34

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶35

22.1.2010 RR

Satpal Singh v. Daljit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Singh v. Daljit Kaur 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

Kirpal Singh Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs Garib Dass and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Janki Dass Jain

M/S Sadashiv Print Packs Works Ltd. Vs State Bank of India and Ors..

Darshan Singh Vs Iqbal Singh

Balbir Kaur Vs United Church Northern India Trust Ass. & Ors.