Dismissed

Mohamad Salman v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Oct 2012CWP/19964/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the manner of fresh elections for President and Vice-President of a Municipal Committee. The court observed that disputed factual allegations regarding election procedure and fraud require evidence. Consequently, the writ court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate such facts, and the petitioner is relegated to filing an election petition as an alternative remedy.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohamad Salman Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.19964 of 2012 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: October 06, 2012

Mohamad Salman

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana & others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

¶15

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶16

The election to the Municipal Committee, Nuh, District Mewat took place on 10.6.2010. Thirteen members were elected. Two members were nominated as Ex-officio, who are members of the Legislative Assembly and Member of Parliament of the constituency. On 10.6.2010, meeting was convened for election of President and Vice-President. Smt.Urmila Gupta and Smt.Aarti Arora were elected as President and Vice-President, respectively for five years.

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.8573 of 2012 titled Sanjay Manocha Versus State of Haryana was filed making serious allegations of corruption against Smt.Urmila Gupta and Smt.Aarti Arora, who were President and Vice-President respectively of the Municipal Committee, Nuh. They both tendered their resignations, which were

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.19964 of 2012 : 2 :

¶19

accepted by the Deputy Commissioner on 29.5.2012.

¶20

Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mewat-Nuh was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct fresh elections of President and Vice-President. Notice for conducting fresh election was issued on 22.8.2012. The meeting statedly was scheduled at 11:30 AM on 18.9.2012. The members, who were willing to participate in the elections, were supposed to remain present in the meeting. It is alleged that many persons including the outsiders and local MLA came present in the campus of Municipal Committee. Member of Parliament, however, was not present. Both Urmila Gupta and Aarti Arora were also not present. This is stated to be because of their protest against the election procedure. It is alleged in the petition that these two office bearers were forced to resign from their respective posts.

¶21

The persons, who had so entered the place of meeting, created hooglism. Local MLA and Additional Deputy Commissioner intervened and statedly made out that the elections cannot be conducted in this manner. Additional Deputy Commissioner thereafter stated that they will not conduct the election and only the presence of the members shall be recorded. In short, as per the petitioner, the meeting was postponed and election was not held. Believing the version of local MLA and Additional Deputy Commissioner, the members were made to put signatures on the blank papers instead of proceedings book, so that proper information could be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner regarding postponement of the election proceedings. All members were satisfied and had not signed on the

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.19964 of 2012 : 3 :

¶23

proceedings book. It is alleged that respondent Nos.3 and 4 colluded with respondent Nos.6 and 7 and have misused the blank paper, which were got signed by all the members, including the local MLA and the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the same was introduced in between pages No.96 and 97 of the proceedings book to show that the election proceedings were conducted and respondent Nos.6 and 7 were shown elected as President and VicePresident, respectively unanimously. The petitioner would allege that this procedure adopted is not called for and is a fraud on the democracy.

¶24

As per the petitioner, in fact, there was no election held and the election of respondent Nos.6 and 7 has been ensured in this manner by misleading and deceiving the people. Obviously, the facts as pleaded in the petition are required to be established by way of evidence. Only on the basis of affidavit annexed with the petition, it may not be possible to determine the factual controversy raised in the petition. Accordingly, writ court is not an appropriate forum where the disputed facts can be adjudicated. The petitioner concededly has an alternative remedy of filing an election petition to challenge the election if election has been held in violation of the rules and in the manner as is urged. The petitioner, therefore, is relegated to alternative remedy of filing an election petition. It will not be appropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction by way of writ petition.

¶25

October 06, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE

Mohamad Salman v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohamad Salman v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kaushik Balasubramaniam Vs State of Punjab

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana

Attar Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Kusum Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti Vs Maharishi Dayanand University and Ors.