Acharaj Lal v. The Election Tribunal-cum-Additional

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr. P.L.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner under Section 176(4)(b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 against respondent No.2, has been dismissed. In the present case, the election for the post of Member, Panchayat Samiti of Ward No.9, Barwala was held on 9.4.2005 along with other elections. The counting of votes was held on 12.4.2005 and the result was declared on the same day. After the counting, respondent No.2 was declared elected as Member, Panchayat Samiti from Ward No.9. The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.2 on the ground that he was illegally and erroneously declared elected C.W.P. No.16382 of 2008 -2- by the Presiding Officer. It was alleged that the result was manipulated by the counting staff in order to declare respondent No.2 as Member, Panchayat Samiti. It was further alleged that the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were wrongly rejected and even two votes polled in his favour were got misplaced/lost fraudulently by the Presiding Officer in connivance with the other election staff with a motive to favour respondent No.2, as a result of which the election was materially effected. It was alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to enter the counting hall for a long time and the counting of votes was started in his absence. It was further alleged that the officials on counting duty wrongly counted the number of invalid votes in favour of respondent No.2 to ensure his victory. The returned candidate-respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied all the allegations. It was stated that he was legally declared elected as Member of Panchayat Samiti from Ward No.9 as he had secured more votes. It was further stated that recounting of votes was properly made and no objection was raised by the petitioner and no prayer for recounting was made before declaration of the result. On the pleadings of the parties, eight issues were framed by the Tribunal, out of which, following two issues are relevant:- “(i) Whether the election held on 9.4.2005 along with other elections and the counting of votes of Member Panchayat Samiti was held on 12.4.2005 are liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP (ii) If the issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP.” On these two issues, the Tribunal recorded the following C.W.P. No.16382 of 2008 -3- finding:- “In the present petition no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioner at the time of polling of the votes. The only objection taken by the petitioner was at the time when respondent no.1 was declared elected by two votes. Even at that time no written objections were filed by the petitioner. Recounting was done by the election officer and respondent no.1 was held elected by three votes instead of two votes by which he was initially declared elected. The petitioner thereafter did not examine his agent nor did he examine any respectable i.e. Sarpanch or other such officer to establish that he had validly objected to the counting but his request was not accepted by the election officer or that the election officer was unduly favouring respondent no.1. Petitioner has failed to establish the allegation levelled by him with regard to irregularities committed by the Presiding Officer and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner only on flimsy grounds. Both these issues are decided against the petitioner.” The said order of the Tribunal has been challenged in this petition. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence led by the parties has recorded a pure finding of fact which does not require any interference in this petition. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 16, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE