Sunil Dutta vs State of Punjab and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This writ petition challenges the election of respondent No.5 as Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, in

an election held on 18.10.2000.

It has been stated in the petition that one Shri Subhash Sharma was earlier elected as Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, and on his

resignation from office, a casual vacancy became available and for filling up the said vacancy, a meeting was fixed by the Divisional Commissioner-

respondent No.3 u/s 6 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short the Act). Shri Bakshi Ram Arora-respondent No.4 who was a

councillor, was appointed as Presiding Officer. The election was accordingly held and respondent No.5-Brij Mohan Kapur was declared elected

as Mayor defeating the petitioner and one Shri Dharamvir Sarin. As per proceedings Annexure P-l, signed by the Presiding Officer-respondent

No.4 and Divisional Commissioner-respondent No.3, 66 votes were polled and one vote was rejected on the ground that by writing his name, the

voter has disclosed the secrecy. Out of 65 votes, the petitioners and respondent No. 5 were held to have secured 25 votes each while Dharamvir

Sarin was declared to have secured 19 votes. On this, draw of lots was held as provided u/s 60(b) and the additional vote was secured by

respondent No.5. It is stated that election of respondent No.5 was vitiated on the following grounds:-

(a) The counting of votes by the Presiding Officer was on instructions from political bosses and though the petitioner had secured 24 votes, his one

vote was illegally rejected and invalid vote secured by respondent No. 5 was wrongly counted.

(b) The conduct of respondent No.3 also vitiated the election as she was interfering with the conduct of the election as could be seen on the video

cassette which was in possession of the petitioner and which was shown on the Sity Cable.

(c) The draw of lots had to be done in the presence of the candidates but no draw of lots was held and the Presiding Officer declared respondent

No.5 elected without draw of lots and slipped from the back door.

(d) Though a senior Deputy Mayor was available, the Divisional Commissioner appointed a Councillor to conduct the meeting.

Written statements have been filed by respondents 1 to 5 separately denying the contentions raised in the writ petition wherein it has been stated

that respondent No.4 was validly appointed to preside over the meeting, the Commissioner did not interfere with the conduct of the elections, the

votes were properly counted and draw of lots was held in accordance with Section 60(b) of the Act. The conduct of election was free from any

mala fide or extraneous influence and minutes of proceedings were faithfully recorded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, repeating the averments in the petition that the election held on 18.10.2000 was liable to be

declared invalid as the petitioner had got higher number of votes; draw of lots was not held in the presence of the petitioner; the Divisional

Commissioner had illegally interfered with the conduct of the elections; respondent No. 4 was wrongly allowed to preside over the meeting. He has

relied upon the decisions reported in S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, (para 19), Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. The State of Maharashtra,

(para 9) and N. Sri Rama Reddy, etc. Vs. V.V. Giri, (para 19) in support of his submission that video cassette was admissible in evidence. He has

also relied upon State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, , Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and

Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and Others, (para 12) in support of his submission that statutory procedure has to be strictly followed.

On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Riar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has submitted that the election was validly held;

counting was proper; proceedings were correctly recorded; respondent No.3 did not interfere with the election but merely supervised it; draw of

lots was valid; respondent No.4 was validly appointed as Presiding Officer and allegations of mala fide were without any substance. He further

submitted that a statutory remedy of election petition was available u/s 74 of the Punjab State Commission Act, 1994, and in view of the disputed

questions of fact, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy. It is also pointed out that against the decision of the Election Tribunal,

an appeal lies to this Court. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. Anil Sharma, DAG, Punjab,

appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 have supported the submissions of Mr. H.S. Riar.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that no exceptional case has been made out for

interference in writ jurisdiction. In view of availability of statutory remedy, the petitioner should be relegated to the same.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy. No order as to costs.