Jagdish Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2025CWP/1602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Election Tribunal; Gram Panchayat elections; Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) as Election Tribunal; Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994; Section 73; ultra vires; writ of certiorari; notification dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P5); pending representation (Annexure P-7); disposed with direction to respondent No.1 to pass reasoned order within 06 weeks; State of Punjab; Punjab State Election Commission; CWP-1602-2025; decision date 18.02.2025; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-7) and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably within 06 weeks; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶23

Jagdish Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of Sub Divisional Magistrates as Election Tribunals for Gram Panchayat Elections is unconstitutional (petitioners sought a writ of certiorari declaring it so). +2 more

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of, without commenting on merits, with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-7) and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 06 weeks from receipt of copy/production of this order.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Given the nature of the order passed, no reply was sought from any respondent as no further proceedings and/or pleadings were required.ratio¶¶22
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PUNJAB & HARYANA HC (Chandigarh), CWP-1602-2025, decided 18.02.2025 — Coram: Sudhir Singh, J. (author, oral) with Sukhvinder Kaur, J. Petitioners (Jagdish Singh and others) sought a writ of certiorari to declare unconstitutional the appointment of Sub Divisional Magistrates as Election Tribunals for Gram Panchayat Elections, to declare Section 73 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and relevant provisions of that Act ultra vires, to direct appointment of independent and impartial Election Tribunals for disputes under Section 73, and to quash notification dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P5). The court disposed of the petition WITHOUT COMMENTING ON MERITS, directing respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-7) and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within 06 weeks; no replies were called for and pending applications stand disposed of. None of the constitutional questions raised was adjudicated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

119

¶3

CWP-1602-2025 Date of Decision: 18.02.2025.

¶4

Jagdish Singh and others

¶5

...Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶11

.......

¶12

Present : Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶14

¶15

SUDHIR SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶16

Petition herein is for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for declaring the appointment of Sub Divisional Magistrates as Election Tribunals for Gram Panchayat Elections, as unconstitutional; further declaring Section 73 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 and relevant provisions of the said Act as ultra vires; further for direction to the State of Punjab and the Punjab State Election Commission to appoint independent and impartial Election Tribunals for resolving disputes under Section 73 of the Act and for quashing notification dated 06.11.2024 (Anneuxre P5).

¶17

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, their pending representation (Annexure P-7) is decided by respondent No.1, which has not been adverted to by the respondents, till date.

¶18

KOMAL 2025.02.20 15:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document

¶19

-2-

¶20

CWP-1602-2025

¶21

On the other hand, on advance service of copy of petition, learned State counsel appears and opposes issuance of notice of motion. He submits that grievance of the petitioners will be looked into by respondent No.1 and it shall take decision either way, on pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners.

¶22

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek reply by any of the respondents as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required.

¶23

Without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of copy/ production of this order.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

		(SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE
		(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE
18.02.2025
Komal
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	: Yes/ No
	Whether reportable?	: Yes/ No

Jagdish Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Dalbir Masih Vs P.O Industrial Tribunal and Others

Baljeet and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Another Vs Seo Ram and Another

Sarabjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs P.O Industrial Tribunal and Others