Allowed

Baljit Kaur v. Sarabjit Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2018CR/5211/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner election candidate sought revision against an election tribunal order directing vote recount without reasoning. The court held a recount cannot be ordered without established cause and set aside the impugned order, directing expedited disposal of the election petition.

What did the court decide?

The order of the election tribunal directing recount of votes is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the election petition within three months.

Baljit Kaur Vs Sarabjit Kaur and Anr. — Election Law | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

C.R. No.5211 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.5211 of 2016 Date of Decision.17.05.2018

Baljit Kaur

...Petitioner

Sarabjit Kaur and another ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Tarun Deep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

Ms. Devki Anand Sullar, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

-.-

¶14

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner-elected candidate is aggrieved of the order dated 27.07.2016 whereby the Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal, Amritsar in the election petition preferred in the year 2013 in respect of election of Sarpanch held in the year 2013 had ordered for recounting of the votes.

¶16

Mr. Tarun Deep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent-election petitioner has failed to place on record any material enabling the Court to order recounting. Even the impugned order is also bereft of the reasoning and has been passed in a most, atrocious and mechanical manner. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Gurnam Bindra Singh Vs. Kulwant Singh and others 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 367.

¶17

On the contrary, Mr. G.S. Nagra, learned counsel

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.22 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

C.R. No.5211 of 2016 -2-

¶20

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that since the difference of votes amongst election petitioner and the respondent was of 14, cause of action arose to move petition for recounting. No harm and prejudice would be caused as the chaff would be removed from the grain for the purpose of adjudication of the election petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Gurtej Singh Vs. Darbara Singh 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 525, thus, urges this Court for upholding the order under challenge.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The order impugned reads as under:-

¶22

“The file of the election petition of the Sarpanch is produced. The counsel of the parties are present. In spite of the repeated asking the correct address of the Presiding Officer was not produced. Issues have been framed. The cross examination of the witnesses have been completed for the recounting of ballot papers in regarding the election of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Kolowal. Tehsildar Ajnala District Amritsar is directed to bring the election record of Sarpanch of village Kolowal in this Court and notice regarding the same be issued for bringing the record for recounting the votes. Recounting of the votes shall be made on 16.8.2016 for that the record be produced.”

¶23

On plain and simple reading of the aforementioned order reveals that no reasoning has been assigned for ordering recounting.

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.22 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

C.R. No.5211 of 2016 -3-

¶26

A recount cannot be ordered on the drop of hat or on the request of the parties, particularly, the election petitioner, who has to establish, prima facie, by summoning the witness from the department that difference of 14 votes was for some extraneous reason or votes polled in his favour were erroneously rejected or to be not found valid.

¶27

Be that as it may, I constrained myself to comment upon

¶28

the merits and demerits of the issue, for, it would be subject matter of election petition. There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi referred supra but the order under challenge is not sustainable as noticed above and is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the election petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months.

¶29

The revision petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶30

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶31

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.22 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Baljit Kaur v. Sarabjit Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Kaur v. Sarabjit Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manavati and Ors.

Ram Mehar & Ors. Vs Saroj & Ors.

Rajbir Singh Vs Suraj Bhan and Ors.

(O&M) Paras Ram Vs the Ajouli Cass Ltd.

Kishori Lal Vs Municipal Council & Ors.

(O&M) Amrik Singh Vs Sat Pal