Cr No. 6155 of 2025 · Punja In Th Chandigar Unjab And Haryana High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The present petition has been file een filed by the petitioner under Articl Article 227 of the the Constitution of India for sett petition r setting aside the election petition (Annexure P ure P-2) dated nil filed by respondent ndent No.1 being not maintainable, a able, as has been filed n filed in contravention to provisions isions of Section 80 of the Punjab Stat b State Election Com n Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter on Act, inafter referred to as the Election Act 1994) and Ru nd Rule 53 of the Punjab Panchayat hayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafte einafter referred to a to as the Election Rules, 1994) w lection 94) which mandate that the Election Tribunal shal l shall dismiss the election petition ly with etition, which does not comply with provisions of ons of Sections 76 & 77 of the Electio Election Act, 1994 and Rule 50 of th of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -2- Election Rule n Rules, 1994 as well as setting asid

8.2025 g aside of the order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P ure P-1) passed by the learned Election lection Tribunal. FACTS

2. Succinctly, the facts are that elec election for the post of Sarpanch o anch of Village Bhok Bhokhra, District Bathinda was held s held on 15.10.2024 and the same wa me was contested by ed by six candidates, who, out of tota of total valid polled votes of 2440, go 40, got votes as ment s mentioned against their names:- Name of Candidate Sr. No. Nam Gog Gogi 1. Para Paramjit Kaur 2. Parminder Kaur (respondent No. Parm 3. herein) Kul Kulwinder Kaur Sarabjit Kaur Sara erein) Sukhpreet Kaur (petitioner herein) Suk NOT NOTA Cancelled Can

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Valid votes Status 463 136 t No.1 701 Not Elected Not Elected Not Elected Not Elected Not Elected Elected 300 59 702 09 70

3. Being unsuccessful from one vo B one vote, respondent No.1-Parminde minder Kaur filed ele led election petition before responden

1.2024, pondent No.2-Tribunal on 11.11.2024 which was re was registered on 02.12.2024 vide cas he said de case No.26/EP. Notices of the said election petiti petition were issued on respondents t dents therein and the contesting partie parties filed their re eir respective replies. Based on pl on pleadings, following issues wer s were framed by res by respondent No.2-Tribunal:- “1. Whether the respondent ent No.1-Sukhpreet Kaur has bee ? OP wrongly elected as Sarpanch? OP

2. Whether there has been tampe OP mpering in the counting or not? OP

3. If both the above issues are are in favour of the petitioner, the , then whether a recounting should be c be conducted?

4. That the petition is not maintai intainable in the present form? OR- -1 PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -3-

5. That the necessary parties we s were not impleaded in the petition ition? OR-1

6. That the election petition ha n has been filed beyond limitation tion? OR-1

4. Vide impugned order dated 18. V No.2- ed 18.08.2025, the respondent No.2 Tribunal whi while observing that issue No.1 c No.1 cannot be decided at this stag s stage unless the vo the votes are re-counted as per issu er issues No.2 & 3 and thus, it kep it kept pending issue issue No.1 for the time being and co concluded that there are substantia stantial deficiencies i cies in counting and ordered for reco AM on r recounting of votes at 10:00 AM on

10.09.2025. . Against this order dated 18.08

18.08.2025, the successful candidat ndidate namely Ms. S Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, whose election llenged ction as Sarpanch has been challenged in the election lection petition, is the petitioner before before this Court. CONTENTIO ENTIONS

5. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior A M nior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gurmee urmeet Singh Budhir udhiraja, Ms. Reema and Mr. Chand

llenged Chandan Singh, Advocates challenged the impugned ugned order dated 18.08.2025 order ordering recounting of votes on th on the following gro ng grounds:- “(i). Firstly, the election petition on has not been presented by th by the respondent No.1/election petitio lection petitioner herself before the Election Tribunal as mandated by Section 94 and ection 76 of the Election Act, 1994 and thus, liable to be dismissed under Act, under Section 80 of the Election Act 1994 and Rule 53 of the Elec upport, Election Rules, 1994. In support reliance is placed upon the jud he judgment passed by the Hon’bl on’ble Supreme Court in G.V. Sreer reerama Reddy and another Vs r Vs. Returning Officer and others hers (2009) 8 SCC 736 and th nd the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -4- judgment passed by a Coordina in C.R. ordinate Bench of this Court in C.R No.7310 of 2023 titled as Gurm fficer, urmail Kaur Vs. Presiding Officer Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Div Divisional Magistrate, Sunam an others decided on 20.03.2015. (ii). Secondly, all six candidates tion in didates, who contested the election in question, were not impleaded as p as parties in election petition excep the petitioner herein, which is vi he Act, h is violative of Section 77 of the Act 1994 and thus, the election petitio petition is liable to be dismissed unde d under Section 80 of the Election Act, 19 ct, 1994. (iii) Thirdly, the election petition petition is barred by limitation, as th as the same is to be filed within 45 45 days from date of election o tion of returned candidate as per the p the provisions of Section 76 of th of the Election Act, 1994. The elect eld on lection in question was held on

15.10.2024 and the election petiti

2.2024, petition was registered on 02.12.2024 thus, there is delay in filing the e the election petition, which cannot b nnot be condoned at all. (iv) Fourthly, recounting of votes f votes has been ordered without ther ut there being any cogent evidence. The The result sheet of the election wa signed by the agent of responde spondent No.1 on 15.10.2024 withou without raising any objection on the day e day of counting of votes. The resul e result was declared on 16.10.2024 at 1 s of re- 4 at 1:20 AM after four rounds of re counting and every time, result re sult remained the same. (v) Fifthly, in the absence of any ade by of any application or prayer made by respondent No.1 or consent by the the petitioner to decide Issue Nos s.2 & 3 as preliminary issues, the res the respondent No.2-Election Tribuna ribunal PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -5- circumvented the provisions of ns of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, as pe as per which, the Court shall pronoun ronounce the judgment on all issue issues except where the Court is of the of the opinion that the case or any par ny part whereof may be disposed of on of on an issue of law only and in tha in that case, it may try issue, which relat h relates to the jurisdiction of the Cour e Court or a bar to the suit created by any force. y any law for the time being in force. (vi) Sixthly, despite an applicati plication being filed seeking dismissa smissal of the election petition under Sec t, 1994 er Section 80 of the Election Act, 1994 for non-compliance of Section 7 t No.2- tion 77 of the ibid, respondent No.2 Election Tribunal instead of decid eded to f deciding the same first, proceeded to decide the issue of recounting of ting of votes without treating the sam e same as a preliminary issue. (vii) Seventhly, respondent dent No.2-Election Tribunal totall totally misdirected itself in recording ev ing evidence of respondent No.1 prio .1 prior to framing of issues and even even before recording evidence o nce of respondent No.1, pleadings were s were not even complete as replies o plies of Presiding Officer as Annexures P file. ures P-7 and P-8 were not on the file. (viii) Lastly, the calculation mad lection n made by respondent No.2-Election Tribunal is totally contrary to vo to votes mentioned in Form IX of al of all four booths i.e. booth Nos.65, 66, 5, 66, 67 and 68. (ix) In support of aforesaid ar ced on aid arguments, reliance is placed on judgments passed by the Hon’ble Singh on’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Vs. Shinder Pal Singh and anoth nother 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 891 and Mehant Ram Prakash Dass Vs. M RCR Vs. Ramesh Chandra 2000(1) RCR (Civil) 314 to contend that d that demand for recount should no ld not PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -6- ordinary be acceded to, unless th less the election petitioner makes out s out a prima facie case with regard p f such egard to error in counting of such magnitude that the result of the e f the election of the returned candidat ndidate may be affected. The Court shall t shall not direct re-counting by way o way of roving or fishing inquiry, as secre s secrecy of ballot papers is paramoun amount consideration.

6. Per contra, Mr. Arun Bansal a Pe nsal and Ms. Nisha, learned counse counsel appearing fo ng for respondent No.1 submitted lection itted that respondent No.2-Election Tribunal after l after hearing the parties, recorded it ems to rded its satisfaction that there seems to be considerab derable discrepancy in the counting Booth unting, because From No.9 of Booth No.66 was n was not prepared and after calculati lculating votes of Appendix 9 of th of the rejected votes votes, it was found that number of ber of rejected votes in total were 54 ere 54; whereas in Ap s in Appendix 9, which is combined r . booth ined result of all four booths i.e. booth Nos.65 to 68 to 68, total number of votes were sh ere shown as 70. Further, number o ber of total votes po tes polled on calculation came to 241 to 2417; whereas in Appendix 9, tota 9, total number of po of polled votes, were shown as 2440. polled 2440. Furthermore, total votes polled to respondent ndent No.1 were on calculation figure endix 9 figured at 699; whereas in Appendix 9 of the combin ombined result, it came to 701 votes. votes. Thus, finding that a prima faci case is establi established for recounting of votes, re tes, respondent No.2-Election Tribuna ribunal has rightly o htly ordered for the same. In support d upon pport of his contention, he relied upon the judgment gment passed Coordinate Benches of hes of this Court in C.R. No.6074 o 074 of 2007 titled a itled as Om Parkash Vs. Ishwar ded on ar Singh and others decided on

02.03.2009; 009; Manjeet Kaur Vs. The Presidin ssed in siding Officer and others passed in C.R. No.535 o.535 of 2025 decided on 21.12.2015 ssed by 2.2015 as well as judgment passed by PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -7- the Hon’ble S ’ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh ngh Vs. Darshan Singh and anothe 2006 (4) RCR RCR (Civil) 55. OBSERVAT VATIONS AND ANALYSIS

7. I have heard learned counsel for sel for the parties and have perused th sed the paper book w ook with their able assistance as we as well as the case laws cited. Th The points emerge merge for consideration from the argu he arguments raised by learned counse counsel for the parties parties are dealt with as under:- I.

8. Whether provisions of Section W mandatory or directory? m tion 76 of the Election Act, 1994 ar Section 76 of the Election Act, 19 Se tion 81 ct, 1994 is para materia to Section 81 of the Repres Representation of the People Act, 195 ct, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as th as the RPA) and pro nd provisions of aforesaid Sections of ons of both the Acts, are reproduced a uced as under:- “RPA

81. Presentation of petitions.- -(1) An election petition calling i ing in question any election may be pr e presented on one or more of th f the grounds specified in [sub-section ction (1) of Section 100 and Sectio 101 to the High Court by any ca ny candidate at such election or an r any elector within forty-five days from from, but not earlier than the date o ate of election of the returned candidat idate, or if there are more than on n one returned candidate at the electio ection and the dates of their electio are different, the later of those tw e two dates. Explanation. In this sub-section, tion, "elector" means a person wh was entitled to vote at the electio lection to which the election petitio tition relates, whether he has voted at s at such election or not. (2) 4*** (3) Every election petition shal shall be accompanied by as man copies thereof as there are respo espondents mentioned in the petitio tition PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -8- 6*** and every such copy shall b all be attested by the petitioner unde his own signature to be a true cop e copy of the petition. ELECTION ACT, 1994

76. Presentation of petition.- (1) An election petition may b ay be presented on Election Tribunal b p al by any candidate to such electio or by any elector within a period eriod of forty five days from the dat of election of the returned candid ndidate or if there are more than o n one returned candidates at the electio ection and there are different dates o tes of their election, then the later of r of these dates shall be taken int account for this purpose. (2) Every election petition shal shall be accompanied by as man copies thereof. as there are respo espondents mentioned in the petitio tition and every such copy shall be att e attested by the petitioner under hi er his own signatures to be a true copy opy of the petition.

9. A conjoint reading of provision visions of aforesaid Sections makes i akes it apparent that t that an election petition calling in ling in question any election may b ay be presented by ed by any candidate to such election o ction or any election or by any electo elector within forty fi forty five days from the date of electio election of the returned candidate. Th The election petiti petition was presented before the res the respondent No.2-Election Tribuna ribunal on 11.11.2024

1.2024 and the order sheet dated 11.1 d 11.11.2024 passed by the responden ondent No.2-Election lection Tribunal is reproduced as unde s under:- “Present: Mr. Sukhmander Sin r Singh Sandhu, Advocate counsel for petitioner. Today election peti petition presented in this Court b rt by Mr. Sukhmander Singh Sandhu, dhu, Advocate. No notification ha n has been issued by the Punjab Gove overnment regarding the hearing o ing of election petitions to this Court y urt yet. The file should be presente on receipt of the notification. Sd/- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -9- Election Tribunal- ate, -cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Presiding Officer Bathinda.” A perusal of aforesaid zimni or

1.2024, mni order reveals that on 11.11.2024 notification r tion regarding constitution of Elect ven in Election Tribunal was not even in existence, th ce, therefore, file was asked to b to be presented on receipt of th of the notification, m tion, meaning thereby, the petition wa ion was not accepted on the said date a date as duly presente esented. Thereafter, another zimni ord ni order was passed by the responden ondent No.2-Election lection Tribunal on 02.02.2024, which which is reproduced as under:- “Present: None. Notification regarding el g election petition has been issued sued. On issuance of notification, this this file has been presented today. I ay. It be registered. On reading the fi he file, it was found that the electio petition fee of Rs.200/- has bee been deposited in the treasury an y and challan is included. Copies ies of petition are attached. Th The respondents mentioned in the pe e petition should be summoned. Th . The case be presented on 09.01.2025 025 for service. On the next date of hearing i ring i.e. 09.01.2025, presence of th of the petitioner (res er (respondent No.1 before this Court) Court) is recorded with her counsel bu sel but on that day, s day, since the Presiding Officer was o was on leave, no proceedings could b ould be done. Now the question for considerati N ideration before this Court is whethe hether the election ction petition not being presented b nted by the respondent No.1/electi petitioner per personally would be fatal to her c her case and the same is liable to b e to be dismissed, be ed, being not maintainable? The is The issue in question is no more re PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -10- integra, as th as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in urt in G.V. Sreerama Reddy’s cas (supra) has he has held as under:- “14.A close look at Section 81 81 reveals that the two remainin sub-sections after the amendment 6 i.e. ent introduced by Act 47 of 1966 i.e (1) and (3) deal with two distin (1 Sub- istinct, but interrelated issues. Sub section (1) deals with the necess cessary requirements of any petitio tition challenging an election, and sub sub-section (3) deals with additiona tional requirements as to the petition pr n presented. Sub-section (1) has fiv s five components: (i) the qualification of the petitio etitioner i.e. he/she must be either “ er “a candidate at such election” or an or an “elector”; (ii) the petition must be presented ented “by” the petitioner; (iii) the petition must be based sed “on one or more of the ground specified in sub-section (1) of Sec f Section 100 and Section 101; (iv) it must be presented in the H he High Court; and (v) it must be presented within 4 in 45 days from, but not earlier tha the date of election of the returne turned candidate, or if there are mor than one returned candidate at te at the election and dates of thei election are different, the later of er of those two dates. Therefore, all these five requirem uirements are extremely specific an c and clear. This inference is further ther strengthened by Section 86(1 86(1) which provides that the “High igh Court shall dismiss an electio petition which does not comply mply with the provisions of Sectio 81”.

19. One can discern the reason w 19 on why the petition is required to b to be presented by the petitioner perso personally. An election petition is is a serious matter with a variety ety of consequences. Since such ch a petition may lead to the vitiatio iation of a democratic process, an , any procedure provided by an electio rictly. lection statute must be read strictly Therefore, the legislature has pr Th s provided that the petition must b st be presented “by” the petitioner h er himself, so that at the time o e of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -11- presentation, the High Court ma t may make preliminary verificatio which ensures that the petition is w us. n is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

22. Learned counsel appearing 22 ring for the appellants relied on on a decision of the High Court urt of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench ench) in Bhanwar Singh v. Navrang Sin Singh [AIR 1987 Raj 63] . In th n the case before the learned Single J gle Judge, the election petition ha been presented by one Rajendra P dra Prasad, Advocate and not by th y the petitioner himself. It was argue rgued by learned counsel for th r the petitioner therein that the elec election petition had been validl alidly presented under Section 81(1) of ) of the Act because Section 81(1) o (1) of the Act only makes a provision sion as to who can file an electio petition and does not deal with as h as to who should actually present ent it before the Registry. It is further her submitted that Section 81 of th of the Act nowhere provides that the Ac the petitioner should be physicall ically present at the time of presentati ntation of the election petition. Th . The learned Single Judge, after a “by”, r adverting to the words “by” “presented” concluded that these “p these words used in Section 81(1) o (1) of the Act have to be given wide mea meaning and found that the electio petition filed through an advoca vocate without the presence of th f the candidate or elector is valid. We . We are unable to accept the sai conclusion.

23. We have already pointed out t 23 CPC out that in spite of provisions in CPC and the Evidence Act relating to in to institution of suit and recording o ng of evidence, etc. this Act provides des all the details starting from th m the presentation of the election petitio etition ending with the decision of th of the High Court. In such circumstance Hi ances, it is but proper to interpret th et the language used by the legislat islature and implement the sam accordingly.

24. The challenge to an election i 24 ion is a serious matter. The object o ect of presenting an election petition b on by a candidate or elector is t is to ensure genuineness and to curt curtail vexatious litigations. If w If we PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -12- consider sub-section (1) along long with the other provisions i ns in Chapters II and III, the object an Ch t and intent of the legislature is tha s that this provision i.e. Section 81(1) (1) is to be strictly adhered to an complied with.

25. In view of the endorsement 25 ent by the Registrar (Judicial) on l) on 7-7-2008 that the election petit 7 y an petition was presented only by an advocate and not by the elect election petitioners, we accept th t the reasoning of the High Court in tition. t in dismissing the election petition We further hold that as per sub W 1, an r sub-section (1) of Section 81, an election petition is to be present esented by any candidate or electo lector relating to the election personally nally to the authorised officer of th of the High Court and failure to adh Hi adhere to such course would b ld be contrary to the said provision ion and in that event the election petition is liable to be dismisse issed on the ground of imprope presentation.

26. Since the High Court has c 26 as correctly dismissed the electio petition, the civil appeal fails an s and the same is dismissed with n th no order as to costs.”

10. A similar issue came up for cons r consideration before a Full Bench o ench of the Allahabad ahabad High Court in Sumitra Devi evi Vs. Special Judge/Addl Distt & Sess. Judge E ge E.C. Act Hardoi and others A IR IR 2020 All 153 (FB) and one of th questions fram framed was as under:- “Whether presentation of an e an election petition by the electio petitioner personally is a manda Sub- andatory requirement in view of Sub section 3 of Section 12 C(1) of th of the Act, 1947 and Rule 3(1) of th of the Rules, 1994 and whether it's non s non-compliance is fatal or it woul merely be an improper presentat ntation, a curable defect?” It is worthwhile to reproduce e U.P. duce here Section 12-C of the U.P Panchayat Ra yat Raj Act, 1947, which is as under: nder:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-6155-20252025 -13- “12-C. Application for questi uestioning the elections - (1) Th The election of a person as Pradh Gram radhan or as member of a Gram Panchayat including the electio ection of a person appointed as th s the Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat ayat under Section 43 shall not b ot be called in question except by an y an application presented to suc authority within such time an and in such manner as may b y be prescribed on the ground that - (a) the election has not been a n a free election by reason that th at the corrupt practice of bribery or or undue influence has extensivel sively prevailed at the election, or (b) that the result of the election tion has been materially affected - i-by the improper acceptance or or; e or rejection of any nomination or; ii-by gross failure to comply with with the provisions of this Act or th or the rules framed thereunder. (2) The following shall be dee deemed to be corrupt practices o es of bribery or undue influence for th or the purposes of this Act. (A) Bribery, that is to say, a y, any gift, offer or promise by by a candidate or by any other pe person with the connivance of of a candidate of any gratification o on of any person whomsoever, wit the object, directly, or indirectly ctly of including - (a) a person to stand or not to st eing, to stand as, or withdraw from being a candidate at any election; or (b) an elector to vote or refrain ain from voting at an election; or a or as a reward to - i-a person for having so stood o od or not stood or having withdraw his candidature; or ii-an elector for having voted or d or refrained from voting. (B) Undue influence, that is is to say, any direct or indirec direct interference or attempt to interfe terfere on the part of a candidate o te or of any other person with the con connivance of the candidate with th th the free exercise of any electoral righ l right; PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-6155-20252025 -14- Provided that without prejud ejudice to the generality of th f the provisions of this clause any suc such person as is referred to therei who - i-threatens any candidate, or any any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or any elector is in is interested, with injury of any kin including social ostracism and and ex-communication or expulsio y; or from any caste or community; or ii-induces or attempts to induc nduce a candidate or an elector t or to believe that he or any person rson in whom he is interested wi become or will be rendered an d an object of divine displeasure o re or spiritual censure, shall be dee deemed to interfere with the fre exercise of the electoral right of t of such candidate or elector withi the meaning of this clause. (3) This application under sub sub-section (1) may be presented b ed by any candidate at the election o on or any elector and shall contain such particulars as may be presc prescribed. (4) The authority to whom the a the application under sub-section (1 n (1) is made shall in the matter of - i-hearing of the application and and the procedure to be followed a ed at such hearing; ii-setting aside the election, or d or declaring the election to be voi or declaring the applicant to be o be duly elected or any other relie relief that may be granted to the petitio etitioner, have such powers and authority a rity as may be prescribed. (5) Without prejudice to generali erality of the powers to be prescribe under subsection (4) the rules m es may provide for summary hearin and disposal of an application un n under sub-section (1). (6) Any party aggrieved by an o an order of the prescribed authorit hority upon an application under sub- -section (1) may, within thirty day from the date of the order, apply pply to the District Judge for revisio vision of such order on any one or more more the following grounds, namely ely - PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -15- (a) that the prescribed authority ority has exercised a jurisdiction no n not vested in it by law; (b) that the prescribed autho uthority has failed to exercise ise a jurisdiction so vested; (c) that the prescribed authority ority has acted in the exercise of it of its jurisdiction illegally or with mate material irregularity. (7) The District Judge may dispo ispose of the application for revisio vision himself or may assign it for dis r disposal to any Additional Distric istrict Judge, Civil Judge or Addit dditional Civil Judge under hi r his administrative control and may r ay recall it from any such officer o er or transfer it to any other such offic officer. (8) The revising authority men mentioned in sub-section (7) shal follow such procedure as may b firm, ay be prescribed, and may confirm vary or rescind the order of the f the prescribed authority or reman the case to the prescribed autho uthority for re-hearing and pendin its decision pass such interim o im orders as may appear to it to b to be just and convenient. (9) The decision of the prescribe cribed authority, subject to any orde passed by the revising authorit hority under this section, and ever decision of the revising authority ority passed under this section, sha be final.” While answering the question as tion as to whether an application unde n under Section 12- -C(1) and (3) is to be presented esented by a candidate or an electo elector personally or lly or it could also be presented throu through his Advocate or his agent, th ent, the Full Bench of nch of the Allahabad High Court has h t has held as under:- “49. This contention is not accep cceptable for the reasons, firstly, th y, the proviso to Rule 4(i) canno not be read in conflict an contradistinction to the provision ision of main Act, 1947 under whic it had been made, Secondly, the the act of presentation of an electio petition and its hearing at the pr e preliminary stage are two differen ferent PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-6155-20252025 -16- acts which may in a given situa also. situation be separated by time also Even otherwise, as already disc n 12- discussed, the intent of Section 12 C(3) of the Act, 1947 is that th at the act of presenting the electio petition before the Prescribed ribed Authority should be by th y the candidate and no one else. Th . The fact that the counsel is als present at that time and he ma may argue the case is an entirel tirely different matter but this by itself tself does not persuade us to hold tha d that presentation of the election pet petition can also be made by th y the counsel or by any other agent o nt of the candidate in the absence o ce of the election petitioner.

50. We are also persuaded to tak o take this view on account of the fac e fact that it is not for us to read som something into a statutory provisio vision which is not specifically provided vided therein when the language use in the statute is plain and una unambiguous and does not lead t ad to absurd results, especially when hen, the intention of the legislatur lature has to be found in the words use s used by the legislature itself as ha s has been held in G.V. Sri Rama Red Reddy (supra). Reference may als be made in this regard to the de SCC e decision reported in (2003) 2 SCC 455; Unique Butyle Tube Indus ndustries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financia Corporation If the statute pre prescribes the mode of doing ng a particular thing then it has to b to be done in the manner prescribe and not otherwise. In this regar egard we approve of the observatio made by this Court in Devendra ndra Yadav's case as noticed by u by us earlier. The words ‘presented ted by any candidate’ occurring i ng in section 12-C(3) means the can candidate has to himself give o ve or deliver the petition to the Pr Prescribed Authority, as alread discussed. The Act 1947 or the the Rules 1994 does not define th term ‘candidate’ to include his a is agent or Advocate.

51. Having held as above, we ne e need to take note of the decision o ion of the Supreme Court in Sheo Sad Sadan Singh's case (supra) wherei presentation of Election Petitio tition under Section 81 of the Ac Act, 1951 by the Advocate or c r clerk, in the presence of th f the candidate/election petitioner er was held to be substantia antial PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -17- compliance of Section 81 of the the Act, 1951 and this view has bee approved by the Supreme Cour Court in the case of G.V. Sri Ram Rama Reddy (supra) also. In this vie view of the matter it needs to b to be clarified that even in matters o rs of election petition under Sectio 12-C of the Act, 1947 if the elec election petition is presented by th y the agent or Advocate of the elec election petitioner/candidate in hi n his presence before the Prescribed ibed Authority, it would amount t nt to substantial compliance of Section ction 12-C(3).

52. We are thus of the view tha that for these reasons an Election Petition has, necessarily and ma d mandatorily, to be presented by th y the candidate/election petitioner h ame, er himself, if it is in his name however, presentation of such uch a petition by his Advocate o te or clerk before the Prescribed Auth Authority, in his presence, would b ld be sufficient compliance of Secti

1947. Section 12-C(3) of the Act, 1947 Question no. 1 is answered acco accordingly.” A Coordinate Bench of this C this Court in Gurmail Kaur’s cas (supra) has he has held that reception of a petition th aken to tion through counsel cannot be taken to be a valid inst lid institution at all.

11. Now coming to the lis in hand, N t dated hand, a perusal of order sheet dated

11.11.2024 r 024 reveals that on the said date esented date election petition was presented through couns counsel but the same could not be reg t be registered as the notification by th by the Punjab Gover Government regarding hearing of elec of election petition was not issued yet ed yet. However, ord er, order sheet dated 02.12.2024, on petition 4, on which date the election petition was presented sented and registered after notificatio fication regarding election petition wa on was issued by the by the Punjab Government, as is ev is evident from the impugned orde d order dated 18.08.2

8.08.2025, neither the counsel for res for respondent No.1/election petition titioner was present n sent nor she herself was present. Th oresaid t. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, th ion, this Court is of the considered op Section red opinion that provisions of Section PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -18- 76 of the Elec e Election Act, 1994, which are mand dhered mandatory in nature, were not adhered to in strict se sensu and, therefore, the election lection petition cannot be stated to b d to be validly institu instituted, thus, liable to be dismissed lection issed under Section 80 of the Election Act, 1994. II.

12. Whether non-impleadment o provided under Section 77 of prove fatal to the election pet election petitioner? ates as ent of all contesting candidates a 77 of the Election Act, 1994 would t No.1- n petition filed by respondent No.1 Section 77 of the Election Act, n Act, 1994 is again para materia Section 82 of 82 of the Representation of the People People Act, 1951 and this Court deem t deems it fit to reprod reproduce both the Sections as under nder:- “82. Parties to the petition. tion.— A petitioner shall join a in as respondents to his petition— (a) where the petitioner, in add addition to claiming declaration tha n that the election of all or any of t void, of the returned candidates is void claims a further declaration tion that he himself or any othe candidate has been duly electe lected, all the contesting candidate idates other than the petitioner and w where no such further declaratio is claimed, all the returned cand candidates; and (b) any other candidate against ainst whom allegation of any corrup tion. practice is made in the petition.

77. Parties to the petition. ion.— A petitioner shall join a n as respondent to his petition— (a) where he, in addition to n to claiming declaration that th t the election of all or any of the retu returned candidates is void, claims ims a further declaration that he him himself or any other candidate ha e has been duly elected, all the cont contesting candidates and where re no such further declaration is claim claimed, all the returned candidates ates’ PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -19- (b) any other candidate against ainst whom allegation of any corrup practice is made in the petition. tion.” It is also necessary to reproduce oduce the prayer sought by responden ondent No.1-electio on petitioner in the election petitio better, petition to understand the issue better which is as un s as under:- “Election petition under Section ctions 76, 89 and 90 of the Punja State Election Commission Act, Gram Act, 1994 read with Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules agains ainst the election of respondent No. No.1 as Sarpanch of Vill. Bhokhra, inda, hra, Tehsil and District Bathinda which is wrong, illegal, void, a id, against rules and regulations o ns of Election Rules vide which respo espondent No.1 has been declared a ed as elected Sarpanch of Vill. Bhokh hokhra, Tehsil & District Bathind wrongly, illegally and against the st the principles of natural justice. Prayer: For setting aside the the alleged election of responden No.1, for passing the appropria priate orders for the re-counting o ng of the votes and for declaring the p the petitioner as elected Sarpnach o ch of Vill. Bhokhra and also for stayi staying the proceedings for handin over charge of Sarpanch to the o the respondent No.1, till the fina decision of the election petition tion.”

13. A bare language of Section 77 of n 77 of the Election Act, 1994 makes i akes it apparent that t that where a petitioner, in addition dition to claiming declaration that th that the election of a of all or any of the returned cand candidates is void, claims a furthe further declaration th tion that he himself or any other cand er candidate has been duly elected, al ted, all the contesting testing candidates and where no such f such further declaration is claimed, al ed, all the returned urned candidates shall be arrayed a yed as respondent(s) to the petition etition. Admittedly, edly, in the present case, respond spondent No.1/election petitioner addition to cla n to claiming declaration of election of tion of petitioner herein as void, claim claims a further dec er declaration of herself as elected S cted Sarpanch of Vill. Bhokhra. Th The PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -20- Hon’ble Supr e Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and ot d others vs. Debi Ghosal and other (1982) 1 SCC SCC 691 has held as under:- “8. A right to elect, fundament y, is, mental though it is to democracy, is anomalously enough, neither a f r a fundamental right nor a commo law right. It is pure and simple, ple, a statutory right. So is the righ to be elected. So is the right to ht to dispute an election. Outside o de of statute, there is no right to elec elect, no right to be elected and n nd no right to dispute an election. St . Statutory creations they are, an , and therefore, subject to statutory li ry limitation. An election petition i ion is not an action at common law, law, nor in equity. It is a statutor proceeding to which neither the the common law nor the principle ciples of equity apply but only those ru se rules which the statute makes an s and applies. It is a special jurisdictio iction, and a special jurisdiction ha n has always to be exercised in accord cordance with the statute creating i ing it. Concepts familiar to common mon law and equity must remai strangers to election law unless s less statutorily embodied. A court ha rt has no right to resort to them on c on considerations of alleged polic because policy in such matters ters as those, relating to the trial o ial of election disputes, is what the st he statute lays down. In the trial o ial of election disputes, court is put in ut in a strait-jacket. Thus the entir entire election process commencing issuance of notification calling upon a con constituency to elect a member o er or members right up to the final r f any, al resolution of the dispute, if any concerning the election is regula gulated by the Representation of th of the People Act, 1951, different stage tages of the process being dealt wit t with by different provisions of the A he Act. There can be no election t on to Parliament or the State Legisla gislature except as provided by th y the Representation of the People ple Act, 1951 and again, no suc election may be questioned exce except in the manner provided by th y the Representation of the People A le Act. So the Representation of th f the People Act has been held to be to be a complete and self-containe code within which must be found und any rights claimed in relation t ion to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-6155-20252025 -21- an election or an election disp dispute. We are concerned with a th an election dispute. The question is on is who are parties to an electio dispute and who may be imple mpleaded as parties to an electio petition. We have already referr eferred to the scheme of the Act. W t. We have noticed the necessity to ri to rid ourselves of notions based o ed on common law or equity. We see th ee that we must seek an answer to th to the question within the four corners ners of the statute. What does the Ac e Act say?

9. Section 81 prescribes who ma o may present an election petition. I on. It may be any candidate at such e ch election; it may be any elector o tor of the constituency; it may be no e none else. Section 82 is heade “Parties to the petition” and and clause (a) provides that th t the petitioner shall join as respond ondents to the petition the returne candidates if the relief claimed ed is confined to a declaration tha the election of all or any of the the returned candidates is void an d and all the contesting candidates if es if a further declaration is sough that he himself or any other ca ected. er candidate has been duly elected Clause (b) of Section 82 requ requires the petitioner to join a in as respondent any other candidate ate against whom allegations of an f any corrupt practice are made in th n the petition. Section 86(4) enable any candidate not already a a respondent to be joined as as a respondent. There is no other pr r provision dealing with the questio estion as to who may be joined as re s respondents. It is significant tha t that while clause (b) of Section 82 o 82 obliges the petitioner to join as as a respondent any candidate aga against whom allegations of an f any corrupt practice are made in th in the petition, it does not oblige th e the petitioner to join as a responden ndent any other person against whom allegations of any corrupt pra t practice are made. It is equall significant that while any cand candidate not already a responden may seek and, if he so seeks, eeks, is entitled to be joined as as a respondent under Section 86(4), 6(4), any other person cannot, unde that provision seek to be joi joined as a respondent, even en if allegations of any corrupt prac practice are made against him. It i . It is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -22- clear that the contest of the ele e election petition is designed to b to be confined to the candidates at s at the election. All others ar excluded. The ring is closed to to all except the petitioner and th d the candidates at the election. If such , how such is the design of the statute, how can the notion of “proper parti arties” enter the picture at all? W ? We think that the concept of “prop proper parties” is and must remai alien to an election dispute u te under the Representation of th f the People Act, 1951. Only those ma e may be joined as respondents to a to an election petition who are menti entioned in Section 82 and Sectio 86(4) and no others. However ver desirable and expedient it ma appear to be, none else shall be j l be joined as respondents. Further the Hon’ble Apex Cour dy v. Court in B. Sundara Rami Reddy v Election Com Commission of India, 1991 Supp (2 - upp (2) SCC 624 has held as under:- “3. After hearing learned couns ounsel for the petitioner we do no o not find any merit in the petition. Se . Section 82 of the Representation o ion of the People Act, 1951 specifies th es the persons who are required to b to be joined as respondents to an an election petition. Under thi provision the returned candida ndidate is a necessary party as as a respondent and where relief for for a declaration is claimed that th at the election petitioner, or any other ther candidate be duly elected, all th ll the contesting candidates are ne necessary to be impleaded a d as respondents to the petition. No No other person or authority excep as aforesaid is required to be i be impleaded as a respondent to a to an election petition under the Act. T ct. The Election Commission of Indi India is therefore not a necessary tition. ary party to an election petition (emphasis supplied).”

14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme C Vs. eme Court in V. Narayanaswamy Vs C.P. Thiruna runavukkarasu (2002) SCC 294 has has held as under:- “23. It will be thus seen that an t an election petition is based on th n the rights, which are purely the c e creature of a statute, and if th if the statute renders any particular re ar requirement mandatory, the cour PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -23- cannot exercise dispensing powe owers to waive non-compliance. Fo . For the purpose of considering a a preliminary objection as to th o the maintainability of the election tion petition the averments in th n the petition should be assumed to b to be true and the court has to fin out whether these averments d ts disclose a cause of action or or a triable issue as such. Sections 81 ns 81, 83(1)(c) and 86 read with Rul Rule 94-A of the rules and Form 25 25 are to be read conjointly as a as an integral scheme. When so read i ead if the court finds non-complianc it has to uphold the prelimina inary objection and has no optio except to dismiss the petition…… ……..”

15. The statutory scheme under Sect t, 1994 Section 77 of the Election Act, 1994 which is par para materia to Section 82 of the ly filed the RPA is such that a validly filed election petiti petition conforming to the provision ovisions of Section 82 of the Act ibi must be pre presented within a period of 45 45 days. When petitioner seek declaration of of his own election, the affected eturned ected parties are not just the returned candidate, bu te, but also the contesting candidates idates, as every contesting candidat ndidate has right und under Section 97 of the Act of 1950 petition f 1950 to file a recriminating petition for seeking eking a declaration that he him elected e himself be declared as elected instead of pet petitioner. Under these circums ircumstances, this Court is of th of the considered op red opinion that since respondent No.1 nt No.1/election petitioner had sought ought a declaration th tion that she be declared as elected ha second ted having obtained maximum second highest numb number of votes but by not impleadi didates, pleading all the contesting candidates the election p tion petition is liable to be dismissed lection issed under Section 80 of the Election Act, 1994, be being not in conformity with its pr its provisions. III.

16. Whether the election petition is ition is time barred? The learned Senior Counsel very el very fairly submitted that he does no oes not want to press press the said issue. Even otherwise, rwise, in the opinion of this Court, th urt, the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -24- election petiti petition was filed within time, as the held on as the election in question was held on

15.10.2024 an 024 and the election petition was not as not presented on 11.11.2024 but th but the same could n ould not registered on the said date du fication due to non-issuance of notification with respect t spect to hearing of the election petition ent and petition by the Punjab Government and thus, the elect e election petition was filed within the in the statutory period of limitation. IV.

17. Whether the respondent No.2 in ordering recounting of preliminary issue of maintaina stified No.2-Election Tribunal was justified of votes without deciding th g the tion? tainability of the election petition? Clause (1) of Section 80 of the f the Election Act, 1994 provides tha es that the Election ction Tribunal shall dismiss an ele an election petition, which does no es not comply with t with the provisions of Section 76 or S and an 76 or Section 77 or Section 103 and an explanation i tion is also attached thereto that an hat an order of the Election Tribuna ribunal dismissing an ing an election petition under this sub his sub-section, shall be deemed to b d to be an order unde r under clause (a) of Section 87. Sect t, 1994 . Section 87 of the Election Act, 1994 deals with d ith decision of the Election Tribunal, bunal, which says ‘at the conclusion o ion of the trial of an f an election petition, the Election T on Tribunal may make an order for for – (a) dismissin issing the election petition…. A co A conjoint reading of provisions o ions of Section 80 an 80 and 87 of the Election Act, 1994 m that an 1994 makes is abundantly clear that an order passed assed dismissing an election petition f tition for non-compliance of provision visions of Section 76 ion 76 or Section 77 or Section 103 n 103 will be deemed to be passed a ssed as though it was it was passed after conclusion of trial. f trial.

18. Though provisions of Code of de of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ar 08 are merely guidin guiding in matters related to elections ctions under the Election Act, 1994, a 994, as Section 81 of 81 of the Election Act, 1994 talks abo lection lks about procedure before the Election Tribunal, as p l, as per which, subject to the provi ovisions of this Act and the Rule Rules made thereun thereunder, every election petition lection ition shall be tried by the Election PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -25- Tribunal, as n l, as nearly as may be, in accordance ined in rdance with the procedure contained in Code of Civil f Civil Procedure, 1908, it is necessar cessary to discuss provisions of Orde f Order XIV Rule 2 C ule 2 CPC. As per said provisions, w nd law ons, where issues both of fact and law arise in the sa the same suit, and the Court is of the of the opinion that the case or any par ny part whereof may f may be disposed of on an issue of la e of law only, it may try that issue firs ue first if that issue re sue relates to; (a) the jurisdiction of on of the Court, or (b) a bar to the sui the suit created by an by any law for the time being in forc in force and for that purpose may, if i ay, if it thinks fit, pos fit, postpone the settlement of the othe as been e other issues until that issue has been determined an ined and may deal with the suit in acco in accordance with the decision on tha on that issue. The r The respondent No.2-Election Tribu Tribunal has framed the issues with respect to the to the maintainability of the election rm and ection petition in the present form and that the neces necessary parties were not impleaded leaded in the present petition as Issue Issues No.4 and 5 re d 5 respectively and, therefore, the re the respondent No.2-Election Tribuna ribunal ought to hav o have dealt with issues Nos.4 & 5 s being & 5 first as preliminary issues being related to mai to maintainability of the election petiti n petition before ordering recounting o ting of votes vide im ide impugned order dated 18.08.2025 ounting 8.2025, as the question of recounting arises only if nly if the election petition survives the hich in ves the test of maintainability, which in the opinion of nion of this Court, is not maintainable iable to inable in the present form and liable to be dismissed, issed, being an invalid institution.

19. The last argument remains to b pect to s to be dealt with is with respect to veracity of i of impugned order dated 18.08.20 No.2- 8.08.2025 whereby respondent No.2 Election Trib n Tribunal has ordered recounting of finding ting of votes. In view of the finding rendered by d by this Court, the election petitio , being petition is liable to dismissed, being defective as f e as filed in violation of Sections 76 t, 1994 ns 76 and 77 of the Election Act, 1994 and said defe defects are incurable, thus, this Cou ng into is Court refrains itself from going into PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2025 CR-6155-2025 -26- the question o stion of veracity of impugned order d rder dated 18.08.2025 on merit, as th , as the same would b ould be an academic exercise. CONCLUSIO LUSION:-

20. As an upshot of above discu discussion, the election petition i tion is dismissed on ed on the ground of invalid presentati sentation, being violative of provision visions of Section 76 ion 76 of the Election Act, 1994 and fo cessary and for non-impleadment of necessary parties as enu as enumerated under Section 77 of th 7 of the Election Act, 1994. Since th nce the election petiti petition itself is dismissed, the impug impugned order dated 18.08.2025 as 25 as a consequence uence thereto, is also set aside.

22. The instant civil revision petition etition is allowed. Misc. application(s) pending, if a ng, if any, also stands disposed of. ber 08, 2025 September Pankaj* ) AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) (AMA JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone easoned Whether reportable : : Yes Yes PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh