AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) vide which re-count of the votes has been ordered to be made in proceedings pursuant to an election petition having been preferred by the Respondents.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order is non-speaking and is violative of the provisions of law as it does not record the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer regarding the necessity to carry out the re-count.
The petition has been opposed by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 who contends that the writ petition is not maintainable as the remedy to challenge the order (Annexure P-4) was by way of an appeal. Reference has been made to Section 100 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. He has thus prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition on this ground.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order.
The Presiding Officer while passing the impugned order has ordered the re-count of the votes without substantiating such an order by any reasoning and explaining the necessity to do so. The order is cryptic and non-speaking and is therefore unsustainable in the eyes of law. The plea of the counsel for the Respondent that as per Section 100 only an appeal is maintainable is devoid of any merit as Section 100 contemplates a challenge to any order by way of an appeal which has been passed u/s 87 and 88 of the Act. If the provisions of Section 87 and 88 are to be seen then it does not contemplate the filing of an appeal challenging an interim order passed by the Tribunal. Section 87 visualizes an order being passed by the Tribunal at the conclusion of the proceedings and therefore the interim orders strictly do not fall within the ambit and purview of an appeal as envisaged u/s 100 of the Act, so as to shut out the remedy of the fling of a writ petition and invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227.
The order being cryptic and non-speaking is therefore held to be bad in law and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision of controversy. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is also at liberty to pass a fresh order in the eventuality of necessity to do so arises.
Disposed of.