Joginder Singh vs Suba Singh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO No. 299 of 2010 titled as Surinder Kaur v. Kartar Kaur and Ors. against the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Ferozepur in an Election Petition No. 11-EP of 2008 whereby the Election Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed and FAO No. 300 of 2010 titled as Joginder Singh v. Suba Singh and Anr. against the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Ferozepur whereby Election Petition filed by appellant Joginder Singh has been dismissed. However, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 300 of 2010.

At the time of notice of motion, learned Counsel for the appellant, who has filed both the appeals together, had argued that one of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is a difference of only two votes between the appellant and respondent No. 1 (returned candidate) as the appellant had got 16 votes whereas respondent had got 18 votes. It is submitted that four votes have been cancelled in violation of Rule 33(c) of The Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 as the Returning Officer, at the time of rejecting votes, did not record any reason as per law. He further submits that those four votes which have been rejected by the Returning Officer may be re-inspected by this Court and if it is found that rejection is in accordance with law much less Rule 36 of The Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, he would not press the present petition.

Before issuance of notice of motion, it would be appropriate to see those four votes, therefore, Registry is directed to summon those four rejected polled votes in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Peer Khan Sheikh, Tehsil and District Ferozepur from the office of the Tribunal.

Adjourned to 11.2.2010.

On the adjourned date, the following order was passed:

On 25.1.2010, Registry was directed to summon four rejected votes polled in the election of Panch of Gram Panchayat Peer Khan Sheikh, Tehsil and District Ferozepur from the office of the Tribunal.

As per office report, letters were sent to the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Ferozepur vide this Court''s letters No. 8617 and 8618 dated 29.1.2010 for sending the four rejected polled votes.

It is also mentioned that message was also conveyed on telephone to the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner on 9.2.2010 but the four rejected polled votes have not been received so far.

This action on the part of the Tribunal much less the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Ferozepur is an act of interference in the administration of justice.

At the first instance, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur is directed to be present in Court along with entire votes polled in the sealed cover on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 25.2.2010.

Copy of this order be sent to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur for compliance.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.

In terms of the aforesaid order, Sh. Jaskiran Singh, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur alongwith Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, B.D. & P.O., Mamdhot Block, Tehsil and District Ferozepur have appeared before this Court along with record of the Election Tribunal. Record is handed over to the Court Secretary of this Court by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh. In the presence of learned Counsel for the appellant, four rejected votes were perused which have been cancelled by the Returning Officer. Out of these four votes, three votes have not been casted in favour of any candidate whereas fourth vote has been double stamped, therefore, these four votes have been declared cancelled by the Returning Officer though he has not given any reason on the back of the Ballot paper but the ballot papers are signed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there is non compliance of Rule 33(c) of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (for short `the Rules). However, he is at pains to argue that what would be the result in case of non compliance of the said provision if the votes are not polled at all in his favour and have not been illegally rejected. Thus, the appellant who has lost the election by one/two votes could not get the benefit of re-appreciation of the four rejected votes. Hence, it is not to be counted for any reason. Of course the Returning Officer should have recorded the reasons as provided under Rule 33(c) of the Rules and should have also kept a brief record of the reasons for rejecting the votes but in the present case even if that error on the part of the Returning Officer is ignored then also the votes which have been rejected, are not going to be counted in favour of the appellant and therefore, the election of the appellant is not going to be materially affected with the rejection of the said votes.

In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Tribunal and the same is hereby upheld and the present appeals which are found to be without any merit, are dismissed with costs. The record of the Election Tribunal is returned in original to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur in Court.