1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & v. CR-8464-2025
Case Details
CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 CR-5679-2025 (O&M) (i) Kamaljit Singh Sandeep Singh and another ...Respondents Versus CR-8464-2025 (ii) Kamaljit Singh ...Pe--oner ...Pe--oner Sandeep Singh and others ...Respondents Versus Reserved on : 26.11.2025 Date of decision: 02.12.2025 Uploaded on: 02.12.2025 CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
(cid:1) existence of a prima facie case; (cid:1) specific pleadings of irregulari(es; (cid:1) material evidence suppor(ng the plea; (cid:1) avoidance of “fishing inquiries”; and (cid:1) preserva(on of secrecy of ballot. 20. In present case, while the Tribunal recorded reasons and relied on the narrow margin of six votes, the recount order cannot survive once the elec(on pe((on itself is held to be non-maintainable. The jurisdic(on to order recount arises only in a validly ins(tuted elec(on pe((on. If the pe((on fails at the threshold, the consequen(al order of recount automat- ically fails. 21. Conclusion : Having considered the factual background, statutory framework, and binding precedents, this Court holds: (cid:1) The elec(on pe((on filed by respondent No.1 suffered from mul(ple jurisdic(onal defects under Sec(ons 76, 77 and 78 of the Act— namely improper verifica(on and non-impleadment of all contes(ng candidates, when a declara(on was sought. (cid:1) These defects are non-curable under Sec(on 80 (1) and that main- tainability of the pe((on must be tested on the date of presenta(on. (cid:1) Withdrawal of the prayer for declara(on aFer commencement of trial does not cure the founda(onal defects. (cid:1) Consequently, the order dated 12.08.2025 direc(ng recoun(ng, be- ing passed in a non-maintainable pe((on, is unsustainable. YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:1) (cid:1) The order dated 08.10.2025, permi;ng withdrawal of one relief, can- not validate an inherently defec(ve pe((on and is thus legally incon- sequen(al. 17. Consequently, both impugned orders are set aside. The elec- (on pe((on filed by respondent No.1 before the Elec(on Tribunal is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Both revision pe((ons succeed and are allowed accordingly. 02.12.2025 Yogesh (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. A.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the pe((oner. Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the respondents/caveators. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** Both these revision pe((ons arise out of the same elec(on proceedings and are, therefore, being decided together. 2. The pe((oner, Kamaljit Singh, challenges two orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Elec(on Tribunal, Malerkotla—one dated 12.08.2025, direc(ng recoun(ng of votes; the other dated 08.10.2025, permi;ng the elec(on-pe((oner Sandeep Singh (respondent No.1) to withdraw the relief seeking declara(on of his own elec(on. The factual background and legal issues being common, a composite adjudica(on is warranted. YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:1) 3. Factual Background : Elec(ons to the Gram Panchayat, Village Hathan, were held on 15.10.2024. Four candidates contested the post of Sarpanch, including the pe((oner and respondent No.1. Out of 2803 valid votes, the pe((oner secured 1166, and respondent No.1 secured 1160 votes. A margin of six votes determined the result. 4. Respondent No.1 filed an elec(on pe((on under Sec(on 76 of the Punjab State Elec(on Commission Act, 1994 (“the Act”), alleging im- proper coun(ng, irregulari(es, and wrongful rejec(on of votes, and sought recoun(ng as well as a declara(on that he be declared elected. 5. The Tribunal, aFer receiving replies, by order dated 12.08.2025, directed recoun(ng of votes and fixed modali(es for the exer- cise. 6. The pe((oner herein invoked Ar(cle 227 before this Court by filing CR-5679-2025, contending, inter alia, that the elec(on pe((on was it- self not maintainable for non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sec- (ons 76, 77 and 103 of the Act. 7. When this Court, on 25.08.2025, drew aHen(on to the man- datory requirement of impleading all contes(ng candidates, where a de- clara(on of elec(on is sought as per Sec(on 77 of the Act, respondent No.1 moved an applica(on before the Tribunal as well as before this Court seeking withdrawal of his declara(on prayer. The Tribunal allowed such withdrawal on 08.10.2025. 8. This second order is challenged by the pe((oner through CR- 8464-2025. 9. a(on: Issues for Considera(cid:22)on : The following issues arise for adjudic- (cid:1) Whether the elec(on pe((on suffered from fatal defects of present- YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document a(on, verifica(on, aHesta(on of copies, and non-impleadment of ne- CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:1) cessary par(es under Sec(ons 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, rendering it non-maintainable? (cid:1) Whether the Tribunal was jus(fied in direc(ng recoun(ng of votes? (cid:1) Whether withdrawal of the prayer for declara(on by respondent No.1 as Sarpanch, cures the alleged inherent defects? 10. Ld. Counsel for the pe((oner contends that (i) the elec(on pe- ((on was not signed on each page, (ii) verifica(on was not in accordance with Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, (iii) copies served on respondents were not at- tested, and (iv) all contes(ng candidates were not impleaded though de- clara(on was sought by elec(on pe((oner i.e., respondent herein to be de- clared as sarpanch. 11. Relevant Provisions are as under: “77. Par(cid:22)es to the pe(cid:22)(cid:22)on.— A pe((oner shall join as respondent to his pe((on-- (a) where he in addi(on to claiming declara(on that the elec(on of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declara(on that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the con- tes(ng candidates and where no such further declara(on is claimed, all the returned candidates: and (b) any other candidate against whom allega(on of any corrupt prac(ce is made in the pe((on. 78. Contents of pe(cid:22)(cid:22)on.-- (1) As elec(on pe((on shall,— (a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the pe(- (oner relies (b) set forth full par(culars of any corrupt prac(ce that the pe((oner al- leges including a statement as possible, of the names of the par(es alleged to have commiHed such corrupt prac(ce or prac(ces and the date and place of the commission of such prac(ce; and ( YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:1) c) be signed by the pe((oner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, (Central Act 5 of 1908) for the verifica(on of pleadings: Provided that where the pe((oner alleges any corrupt prac(ce, the pe((on shall be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allega(on of such corrupt prac(ce and the relevant par(cu- lars thereof. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the pe((on shall also be signed by the pe- ((oner and verified in the same manner as the pe((on. 80. Trial of elec(cid:22)on pe(cid:22)(cid:22)ons.-- (1) The Elec(on Tribunal shall dismiss an elec(on pe((on which does not comply with the provisions of sec(on 76 or sec(on 77 or sec(on 103. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” 12. Use of the words “shall” in all the above provisions make it clear that these are mandatory requirements. 13. The legal posi(on is seHled by a long line of judgments. In Radha vs. ADC (General) cum Presiding Officer Law Finder Doc Id # 853675; Ranjit Kaur v Harjinder Kaur and others, 2010(2) L.A.R. 1; Manjit Kaur v. Bhupinder Kaur 2013 (3) LAR 443; and Gurmit Singh vs Raj Kumar and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 1279475, by referring to Sec(on 76, 77 & 80 of the Act, it has been held that non-compliance with Sec(ons 76, 77 and 103 is not a curable defect, as it strikes at the root of maintainability and mandates dismissal of the pe((on at the threshold. In Amarjit Kaur and others vs Raj Kau and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 193, non-impleadment of all the contes(ng candidates, when he seeks declara(on to be declared as elected, has been held to be a mandatory requirement. 14. The object of these provisions is to ensure authen(city, pre- vent fabrica(on, and safeguard returned candidates from being taken by YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:1) surprise. AHested copies and proper verifica(on are not procedural nice(es but substan(ve statutory requirements. 15. In the present case, the record confirms that the original elec- (on pe((on was neither signed page-wise nor verified as per law. Further, respondent No.1/elec(on pe((oner admiHedly did not implead all con- tes(ng candidates while simultaneously seeking a declara(on of his own elec(on. This defect alone is fatal in terms of Sec(on 77 to be read with Sec(on 80 of the Act, as held in Amarjit Kaur (supra). 16. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1/elec(on pe((oner argues that by giving up his declara(on prayer, he brought the pe((on in conform- ity with Sec(on 77. However, this argument cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, a pe((on that is defec(ve ab ini(cid:20)o cannot be revived by withdrawal or amendment subsequently, par(cularly when Sec(on 80(1) declares such defects as non-curable. Secondly, the trial had already com- menced, and evidence had been led. The amendments, which affect the substance of an elec(on dispute, aFer commencement of trial, cannot be permiHed. Thus, the withdrawal of declara(on does not erase the original defect. 17. The judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1— Avtar Singh Vs. Harcharan Singh Brar and others, 1994 AIR (P&H) 161; and Santokh Ram Vs. Ram Asra and others, 2016 (3) PLR 143, deal with curable defects in verifica(on and not with non-impleadment of ne- cessary par(es, which is expressly held to be fatal by the more directly ap- plicable precedents cited by the pe((oner. 18. Accordingly, it is held that the elec(on pe((on was not main- tainable when filed, and was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 19. Proceeding further, ordinarily, recoun(ng is an excep(onal step. The law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh v. Dar- shan Singh Law Finder Doc Id # 123473 and reiterated in Gurtej Singh Vs. YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5679-2025 (O&M) & CR-8464-2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:1) Darbara Singh 2000 (3) PLR 344; Roop Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, 2006 (2) LAR 282; and Mohinder Singh Vs. Inder Singh and others, 2016 (2) LAR 248 requires that following factors are relevant for or- dering recoun(ng of votes: