Amrik Singh v. Election Tribunal Election Tribunal
Case Details
(O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6772-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 24.09.2025 Decided on : Amrik Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Election Tribunal Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others Magistrate and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. C.S.Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. C.S.Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S.Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG Punjab, Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG Punjab, for respondent No.1 for respondent No.1 Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate and Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate and Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate For respondent No.2/Caveator. For respondent No.2/Caveator. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. That the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India That the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India That the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India That the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India setting aside of the election has been filed by the petitioner Amrik Singh seeking setting aside of the election has been filed by the petitioner Amrik Singh seeking has been filed by the petitioner Amrik Singh seeking petition filed by respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident petition filed by respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident petition filed by respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident petition filed by respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village Phullo Mithi , District Bathinda, as also the impugned order dated Phullo Mithi, District Bathinda, as also the impugned order dated , District Bathinda, as also the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, on the ground that the same 12.09.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, on the ground that the same 12.09.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, on the ground that the same 12.09.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, on the ground that the same is wholly illegal, erroneous, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Punjab is wholly illegal, erroneous, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Punjab is wholly illegal, erroneous, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Punjab is wholly illegal, erroneous, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Punjab the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, State Election Commission Act, 1994 and the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, State Election Commission Act, 1994 and 1994, and against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and 1994, and against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and 1994, and against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and 1994, and against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -2- - Brief Facts 2. Background of the case is that the election in question was held on Background of the case is that the election in question was held on Background of the case is that the election in question was held on Background of the case is that the election in question was held on 15.10.2024 for the office of Sarpanch of village 15.10.2024 for the office of Sarpanch of v , Tehsil and District illage Phullo Mithi, Tehsil and District Bathinda, in which the petitioner, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh and respondent Bathinda, in which the petitioner, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh and respondent Bathinda, in which the petitioner, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh and respondent Bathinda, in which the petitioner, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh and respondent No. 3 Gurtej Singh contested. The total valid polled votes were 2715, out of which No. 3 Gurtej Singh contested. The total valid polled votes were 2715, out of which No. 3 Gurtej Singh contested. The total valid polled votes were 2715, out of which No. 3 Gurtej Singh contested. The total valid polled votes were 2715, out of which lected, respondent No. 2 the petitioner secured 1044 votes and was declared elected, respondent No. 2 the petitioner secured 1044 votes and was declared e the petitioner secured 1044 votes and was declared e secured 1033 votes, respondent No. 3 secured 572 votes, one vote went to NOTA secured 1033 votes, respondent No. 3 secured 572 votes, one vote went to NOTA secured 1033 votes, respondent No. 3 secured 572 votes, one vote went to NOTA secured 1033 votes, respondent No. 3 secured 572 votes, one vote went to NOTA and 65 votes were cancelled though wrongly mentioned as 63. The result of the and 65 votes were cancelled though wrongly mentioned as 63. The result of the and 65 votes were cancelled though wrongly mentioned as 63. The result of the and 65 votes were cancelled though wrongly mentioned as 63. The result of the election was prepared on Form 9 dated 15.10.2024 which was duly signed by all election was prepared on Form 9 dated 15.10.2024 which was duly signed by a election was prepared on Form 9 dated 15.10.2024 which was duly signed by a election was prepared on Form 9 dated 15.10.2024 which was duly signed by a parties including respondent No. 2 without any protest. parties including respondent No. 2 without any protest. parties including respondent No. 2 without any protest. 3. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh filed an election petition Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh filed an election petition Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh filed an election petition Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Hardev Singh filed an election petition before respondent No. 1 on 22.11.2024 which was registered on dated ‘nil’ before respondent No. 1 on 22.11.2024 which was registered on before respondent No. 1 on 22.11.2024 which was registered on before respondent No. 1 on 22.11.2024 which was registered on 02.12.2024 as case No. 31/EP. 02.12.2024 as case No. 31/EP. 4. 5. filed reply to the said petition. The petitioner filed reply to the said petition. The petitioner issues were During the pendency of the proceedings, following issues were During the pendency of the proceedings, During the pendency of the proceedings, framed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda on 09.05.2025, as follows: framed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda on 09.05.2025, as follows: framed by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda on 09.05.2025, as follows: 1. Was the vote counting conducted incorrectly and was there Was the vote counting conducted incorrectly and was there Was the vote counting conducted incorrectly and was there counting? O.P. manipulation during the counting? O.P. manipulation during the 2. Were the votes of voters who had shifted out of the village also Were the votes of voters who had shifted out of the village also Were the votes of voters who had shifted out of the village also cast by other individuals? O.P. cast by other individuals? O.P. Is a recount of votes warranted? O.P. Is a recount of votes warranted? O.P. Is the petition not maintainable in its current form? O.R.-1 Is the petition not maintainable in its current form? O.R. right to file the petition? O.R.- Does the petitioner not have the right to file the petition? O.R. Does the petitioner not have the 3. 4. 5. 1 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -3- - 6. Was the petition filed in violation of Section 77(2) of the Punjab Was the petition filed in violation of Section 77(2) of the Punjab Was the petition filed in violation of Section 77(2) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994? O.R.-1 State Election Commission Act, 1994? O.R. State Election Commission Act, 1994? O.R. 7.. Relief. 6. On 09.06.2025 respondent No. 2 himself appeared and sought time to On 09.06.2025 respondent No. 2 himself appeared and sought time to On 09.06.2025 respondent No. 2 himself appeared and sought time to On 09.06.2025 respondent No. 2 himself appeared and sought time to examine the witnesses. Respondent No. 2 then examined file reply and to cross-examine the witnesses. Respondent No. 2 then examined examine the witnesses. Respondent No. 2 then examined file reply and to cro himself as PW1/A, Darshan Singh as PW2/A and Gurmail Singh as PW3/A, whose himself as PW1/A, Darshan Singh as PW2/A and Gurmail Singh as PW3/A, whose himself as PW1/A, Darshan Singh as PW2/A and Gurmail Singh as PW3/A, whose himself as PW1/A, Darshan Singh as PW2/A and Gurmail Singh as PW3/A, whose examination was completed on 10.07.2025. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 cross-examination was completed on 10.07.2025. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 examination was completed on 10.07.2025. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 examination was completed on 10.07.2025. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 . 3 Gurtej Singh appeared in closed his evidence on 01.08.2025. Respondent No. 3 Gurtej Singh appeared in closed his evidence on 01.08.2025. Respondent No closed his evidence on 01.08.2025. Respondent No examination was evidence and filed his affidavit as DW1/A whose cross-examination was evidence and filed his affidavit as DW1/A whose cross evidence and filed his affidavit as DW1/A whose cross completed on 13.08.2025. It is an admitted position on record that none of the PWs completed on 13.08.2025. It is an admitted position on record that none of the PWs completed on 13.08.2025. It is an admitted position on record that none of the PWs completed on 13.08.2025. It is an admitted position on record that none of the PWs or was produced any cogent evidence of irregularities in the counting of votes, nor was produced any cogent evidence of irregularities in the counting of votes, n produced any cogent evidence of irregularities in the counting of votes, n any complaint filed at the time of counting before the Returning Officer or any complaint filed at the time of counting before the Returning Officer or any complaint filed at the time of counting before the Returning Officer or any complaint filed at the time of counting before the Returning Officer or Election Commission, though respondent No. 2 and his election agent were present Election Commission, though respondent No. 2 and his election agent were present Election Commission, though respondent No. 2 and his election agent were present Election Commission, though respondent No. 2 and his election agent were present throughout the counting on 15.10.2024 and signed the result sheet without throughout the counting on 15.10.2024 and signed the result sheet without throughout the counting on 15.10.2024 and signed the result sheet without throughout the counting on 15.10.2024 and signed the result sheet without this, the learned Election Tribunal vide impugned order dated objection. Despite this, the learned Election Tribunal vide impugned order dated this, the learned Election Tribunal vide impugned order dated objection. Despite 12.09.2025 ordered recounting of the votes which has been assailed in the present 12.09.2025 ordered recounting of the votes which has been assailed in the present 12.09.2025 ordered recounting of the votes which has been assailed in the present 12.09.2025 ordered recounting of the votes which has been assailed in the present petition.
Legal Reasoning
convincing evidence showing prima facie irregularity. In the present case neither convincing evidence showing prima facie irregularity. In the present case neither convincing evidence showing prima facie irregularity. In the present case neither convincing evidence showing prima facie irregularity. In the present case neither pleadings disclose any material irregularity nor the witnesses examined by pleadings disclose any material irregularity nor the witnesses examined by pleadings disclose any material irregularity nor the witnesses examined by pleadings disclose any material irregularity nor the witnesses examined by No. 2 have been able to prove anything in that regard, yet the tribunal respondent No. 2 have been able to prove anything in that regard, yet the tribunal No. 2 have been able to prove anything in that regard, yet the tribunal No. 2 have been able to prove anything in that regard, yet the tribunal proceeded to order recounting, which is wholly unsustainable. proceeded to order recounting, which is wholly unsustainable. proceeded to order recounting, which is wholly unsustainable. 10. Further assertion has been made that the learned Election Tribunal Further assertion has been made that the learned Election Tribunal Further assertion has been made that the learned Election Tribunal Further assertion has been made that the learned Election Tribunal with the trial inasmuch as it committed procedural irregularities in proceeding with the trial inasmuch as it committed procedural irregularities in proceeding committed procedural irregularities in proceeding compliance with Section 103 failed to decide the issue of maintainability for non-compliance with Section 103 failed to decide the issue of maintainability for non failed to decide the issue of maintainability for non and Rule 52 as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. Instead, and Rule 52 as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. Instead, and Rule 52 as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. Instead, and Rule 52 as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. Instead, l objection and it recorded evidence without even deciding this fundamental objection and it recorded evidence without even deciding this fundamenta it recorded evidence without even deciding this fundamenta thereafter passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 for recounting of votes, thereafter passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 for recounting of votes, thereafter passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 for recounting of votes, thereafter passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 for recounting of votes, which is contrary to the procedure envisaged by the Act and Rules. which is contrary to the procedure envisaged by the Act and Rules. which is contrary to the procedure envisaged by the Act and Rules. 11. It is also submitted that on the date of counting of votes i.e. It is also submitted that on the date of counting of votes i.e. It is also submitted that on the date of counting of votes i.e. It is also submitted that on the date of counting of votes i.e. agent of respondent No. 2 was present throughout and 15.10.2024, the election agent of respondent No. 2 was present throughout and agent of respondent No. 2 was present throughout and 15.10.2024, the election raised no objection, nor did respondent No. 2 himself raise any protest. On the raised no objection, nor did respondent No. 2 himself raise any protest. On the raised no objection, nor did respondent No. 2 himself raise any protest. On the raised no objection, nor did respondent No. 2 himself raise any protest. On the contrary, he signed beneath the result sheet voluntarily acknowledging the contrary, he signed beneath the result sheet voluntarily acknowledging the contrary, he signed beneath the result sheet voluntarily acknowledging the contrary, he signed beneath the result sheet voluntarily acknowledging the er was lodged before the correctness of the result. No complaint whatsoever was lodged before the correctness of the result. No complaint whatsoev correctness of the result. No complaint whatsoev Returning Officer or before the Chief Election Commissioner of Punjab on the said Returning Officer or before the Chief Election Commissioner of Punjab on the said Returning Officer or before the Chief Election Commissioner of Punjab on the said Returning Officer or before the Chief Election Commissioner of Punjab on the said day. In these circumstances, no subsequent allegations of irregularity can be day. In these circumstances, no subsequent allegations of irregularity can be day. In these circumstances, no subsequent allegations of irregularity can be day. In these circumstances, no subsequent allegations of irregularity can be llegations is entertained at a belated stage, and recounting of votes on such vague allegations is entertained at a belated stage, and recounting of votes on such vague a entertained at a belated stage, and recounting of votes on such vague a contrary to law. 12. Lastly, it is the assertion of the petitioner that the findings recorded by Lastly, it is the assertion of the petitioner that the findings recorded by Lastly, it is the assertion of the petitioner that the findings recorded by Lastly, it is the assertion of the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 to 7 are totally erroneous and perverse, being contrary the Tribunal on issues No. 1 to 7 are totally erroneous and perverse, being contrary the Tribunal on issues No. 1 to 7 are totally erroneous and perverse, being contrary the Tribunal on issues No. 1 to 7 are totally erroneous and perverse, being contrary terial whatsoever. The to the evidence on record and in fact unsupported by any material whatsoever. The to the evidence on record and in fact unsupported by any ma to the evidence on record and in fact unsupported by any ma TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -6- - Tribunal has failed to give a categorical finding on the maintainability of the Tribunal has failed to give a categorical finding on the maintainability of the Tribunal has failed to give a categorical finding on the maintainability of the Tribunal has failed to give a categorical finding on the maintainability of the election petition in light of Section 103 of the Act and Rules 52 and 53 of the election petition in light of Section 103 of the Act and Rules 52 and 53 of the election petition in light of Section 103 of the Act and Rules 52 and 53 of the election petition in light of Section 103 of the Act and Rules 52 and 53 of the oceeded to Rules, 1994, and without treating the same as a preliminary issue, has proceeded to Rules, 1994, and without treating the same as a preliminary issue, has pr Rules, 1994, and without treating the same as a preliminary issue, has pr order recounting of votes. This is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, order recounting of votes. This is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, order recounting of votes. This is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, order recounting of votes. This is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is not sustainable in law. therefore, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is not sustainable in law. therefore, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is not sustainable in law. 13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has tena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High relied upon a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High tena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High relied upon a ca Courts to assert that recounting of votes cannot be ordered in the absence of Courts to assert that recounting of votes cannot be ordered in the absence of Courts to assert that recounting of votes cannot be ordered in the absence of Courts to assert that recounting of votes cannot be ordered in the absence of specific pleadings and cogent evidence, and that election petitions filed without specific pleadings and cogent evidence, and that election petitions filed without specific pleadings and cogent evidence, and that election petitions filed without specific pleadings and cogent evidence, and that election petitions filed without elating to deposit of court fee and security compliance of mandatory provisions relating to deposit of court fee and security elating to deposit of court fee and security compliance of mandatory provisions r are not maintainable. are not maintainable. 14. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , wherein it was Preet Mohinder Singh v. Kirpal Singh, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 657, wherein it was Preet Mohinder Singh v. Kirpal Singh, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 657 in Preet Mohinder Singh v. Kirpal Singh, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 657 ding rejection or acceptance of votes, held that mere vague allegations regarding rejection or acceptance of votes, ding rejection or acceptance of votes, held that mere vague allegations regar without furnishing material facts and particulars, cannot be the basis for ordering without furnishing material facts and particulars, cannot be the basis for ordering without furnishing material facts and particulars, cannot be the basis for ordering without furnishing material facts and particulars, cannot be the basis for ordering recounting. The Court categorically held that in the absence of cogent evidence, recounting. The Court categorically held that in the absence of cogent evidence, recounting. The Court categorically held that in the absence of cogent evidence, recounting. The Court categorically held that in the absence of cogent evidence, nnot proceed merely on bald recounting is not justified and election tribunal cannot proceed merely on bald recounting is not justified and election tribunal ca recounting is not justified and election tribunal ca allegations. 15. Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Learned counsel has also relied upon Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Learned counsel has also relied upon Learned counsel has also relied upon , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Kumar Singh, 1993 AIR SC 367, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Kumar Singh, 1993 AIR SC 367 and recounting secrecy of ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly, and recounting secrecy of ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly, secrecy of ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly, of votes can be ordered only when irregularity in counting is specifically pleaded of votes can be ordered only when irregularity in counting is specifically pleaded of votes can be ordered only when irregularity in counting is specifically pleaded of votes can be ordered only when irregularity in counting is specifically pleaded and proved. In that case, since no objection was raised during counting and no and proved. In that case, since no objection was raised during counting and no and proved. In that case, since no objection was raised during counting and no and proved. In that case, since no objection was raised during counting and no evidence of illegality was produced, the order directing recount was set aside. evidence of illegality was produced, the order directing recount was set aside. evidence of illegality was produced, the order directing recount was set aside. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -7- - 16. M. Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Reddy Further reliance is placed upon M. Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Reddy M. Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Reddy Further reliance is placed upon , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that & Ors., 1999 AIR SC 2167, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that & Ors., 1999 AIR SC 2167 recounting of votes cannot be justified solely by a candidate’s allegations of recounting of votes cannot be justified solely by a candidate’s allegations of recounting of votes cannot be justified solely by a candidate’s allegations of recounting of votes cannot be justified solely by a candidate’s allegations of al evidence showing that such irregularities have irregularities without substantial evidence showing that such irregularities have al evidence showing that such irregularities have irregularities without substanti materially impacted the election results. materially impacted the election results. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mithu Singh v. judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mithu Singh v. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mithu Singh v. judgment of the Ranjit Singh & Ors., FAO No. 1008 of 1995, decided on 10.10.1995 Ranjit Singh & , wherein it Ors., FAO No. 1008 of 1995, decided on 10.10.1995, wherein it was categorically held that recounting of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of was categorically held that recounting of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of was categorically held that recounting of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of was categorically held that recounting of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course and in the absence of sufficient material or evidence, an election petition course and in the absence of sufficient material or evidence, an election petition course and in the absence of sufficient material or evidence, an election petition course and in the absence of sufficient material or evidence, an election petition nquiry into the counting process must be dismissed. It filed only to make a fishing inquiry into the counting process must be dismissed. It nquiry into the counting process must be dismissed. It filed only to make a fishing i was further observed that unless evidence of illegality or irregularity is produced, was further observed that unless evidence of illegality or irregularity is produced, was further observed that unless evidence of illegality or irregularity is produced, was further observed that unless evidence of illegality or irregularity is produced, the Tribunal cannot sustain an order of recount. the Tribunal cannot sustain an order of recount. 18. On the strength of the above judicial precedents, counsel for the On the strength of the above judicial precedents, counsel for On the strength of the above judicial precedents, counsel for On the strength of the above judicial precedents, counsel for petitioner has contended that the present case stands on an even weaker footing, as petitioner has contended that the present case stands on an even weaker footing, as petitioner has contended that the present case stands on an even weaker footing, as petitioner has contended that the present case stands on an even weaker footing, as neither there are proper pleadings nor any evidence of irregularity in the counting neither there are proper pleadings nor any evidence of irregularity in the counting neither there are proper pleadings nor any evidence of irregularity in the counting neither there are proper pleadings nor any evidence of irregularity in the counting of votes. The agent of respondent No. 2 was present on 15.10.2024 throughout the of votes. The agent of respondent No. 2 was present on 15.10.2024 throughout the of votes. The agent of respondent No. 2 was present on 15.10.2024 throughout the of votes. The agent of respondent No. 2 was present on 15.10.2024 throughout the nting and signed the result sheet without protest, and no complaint was lodged counting and signed the result sheet without protest, and no complaint was lodged nting and signed the result sheet without protest, and no complaint was lodged nting and signed the result sheet without protest, and no complaint was lodged on the said date. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 directing recounting on the said date. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 directing recounting on the said date. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 directing recounting on the said date. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 directing recounting of votes is against the settled principles of law and cannot be sustained. of votes is against the settled principles of law and cannot be sustained. of votes is against the settled principles of law and cannot be sustained. Submissions of learn Respondent No.2 / Caveator of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / Caveator 19. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 and has argued that the same is perfectly justified in the order dated 12.09.2025 and has argued that the same is perfectly justified in the order dated 12.09.2025 and has argued that the same is perfectly justified in the order dated 12.09.2025 and has argued that the same is perfectly justified in the lection for the post of facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the election for the post of facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the e facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the e , Tehsil and District Bathinda was held on Sarpanch of village Phullo Mithi, Tehsil and District Bathinda was held on , Tehsil and District Bathinda was held on Sarpanch of village TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -8- - 15.10.2024, and the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of merely 11 15.10.2024, and the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of merely 11 15.10.2024, and the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of merely 11 15.10.2024, and the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of merely 11 votes, as he secured 1044 votes while respondent No. 2 secured 1033 votes and votes, as he secured 1044 votes while respondent No. 2 secured 1033 votes and votes, as he secured 1044 votes while respondent No. 2 secured 1033 votes and votes, as he secured 1044 votes while respondent No. 2 secured 1033 votes and spondent No. 3 secured 572 votes. It is submitted that in the course of the respondent No. 3 secured 572 votes. It is submitted that in the course of the spondent No. 3 secured 572 votes. It is submitted that in the course of the spondent No. 3 secured 572 votes. It is submitted that in the course of the election and particularly at the stage of counting, several illegalities and election and particularly at the stage of counting, several illegalities and election and particularly at the stage of counting, several illegalities and election and particularly at the stage of counting, several illegalities and irregularities occurred, which materially affected the result of the election and irregularities occurred, which materially affected the result of the election and irregularities occurred, which materially affected the result of the election and irregularities occurred, which materially affected the result of the election and rendered it liable to be set aside. rendered it liable to 20. It is contended that the election was conducted in a wholly wrong and It is contended that the election was conducted in a wholly wrong and It is contended that the election was conducted in a wholly wrong and It is contended that the election was conducted in a wholly wrong and illegal manner in connivance with the petitioner and the election staff. The ballot illegal manner in connivance with the petitioner and the election staff. The ballot illegal manner in connivance with the petitioner and the election staff. The ballot illegal manner in connivance with the petitioner and the election staff. The ballot boxes were not properly sealed in the presence of respondent No. 2 or his polling boxes were not properly sealed in the presence of respondent No. 2 or his polling boxes were not properly sealed in the presence of respondent No. 2 or his polling boxes were not properly sealed in the presence of respondent No. 2 or his polling agent, nor were the seals opened in their presence at the time of counting. agent, nor were the seals opened in their presence at the time of counting. agent, nor were the seals opened in their presence at the time of counting. agent, nor were the seals opened in their presence at the time of counting. Respondent No. 2 and his agent were not even allowed to come near the counting Respondent No. 2 and his agent were not even allowed to come near the counting Respondent No. 2 and his agent were not even allowed to come near the counting Respondent No. 2 and his agent were not even allowed to come near the counting table, while the petitioner and his supporters were permitted to sit near the table, while the petitioner and his supporters were permitted to sit near the table, while the petitioner and his supporters were permitted to sit near the table, while the petitioner and his supporters were permitted to sit near the deliberate exclusion vitiated the fairness of the counting. counting process. This deliberate exclusion vitiated the fairness of the counting. counting process. This 21. It is further urged that a large number of votes which were rejected It is further urged that a large number of votes which were rejected It is further urged that a large number of votes which were rejected It is further urged that a large number of votes which were rejected had in fact been wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner. The presiding officer had in fact been wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner. The presiding officer had in fact been wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner. The presiding officer had in fact been wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner. The presiding officer agent about the serial numbers of the did not inform respondent No. 2 or his agent about the serial numbers of the agent about the serial numbers of the did not inform respondent No. 2 or his rejected votes, nor did he give any opportunity to them to verify the same. This rejected votes, nor did he give any opportunity to them to verify the same. This rejected votes, nor did he give any opportunity to them to verify the same. This rejected votes, nor did he give any opportunity to them to verify the same. This conduct created grave suspicion of manipulation. Moreover, some voters who had conduct created grave suspicion of manipulation. Moreover, some voters who had conduct created grave suspicion of manipulation. Moreover, some voters who had conduct created grave suspicion of manipulation. Moreover, some voters who had t by others in connivance already left the village had their votes fraudulently cast by others in connivance already left the village had their votes fraudulently cas already left the village had their votes fraudulently cas with the petitioner. The voting staff openly helped the petitioner during the process with the petitioner. The voting staff openly helped the petitioner during the process with the petitioner. The voting staff openly helped the petitioner during the process with the petitioner. The voting staff openly helped the petitioner during the process of counting and preparation of result. It is also submitted that no videography of of counting and preparation of result. It is also submitted that no videography of of counting and preparation of result. It is also submitted that no videography of of counting and preparation of result. It is also submitted that no videography of the counting was carried out, thereby concealing the true state of affairs. the counting was carried out, thereby concealing the true sta the counting was carried out, thereby concealing the true sta 22. On the strength of these allegations, it has been argued that the On the strength of these allegations, it has been argued that the On the strength of these allegations, it has been argued that the On the strength of these allegations, it has been argued that the election process was vitiated by serious irregularities and fraud, and the only way election process was vitiated by serious irregularities and fraud, and the only way election process was vitiated by serious irregularities and fraud, and the only way election process was vitiated by serious irregularities and fraud, and the only way to ascertain the true will of the electorate is to order a recount of the votes. Since to ascertain the true will of the electorate is to order a recount of the votes. Since to ascertain the true will of the electorate is to order a recount of the votes. Since to ascertain the true will of the electorate is to order a recount of the votes. Since TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -9- - the margin of votes was only 11, any small irregularity would materially affect the the margin of votes was only 11, any small irregularity would materially affect the the margin of votes was only 11, any small irregularity would materially affect the the margin of votes was only 11, any small irregularity would materially affect the result, and therefore the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction to order recount. result, and therefore the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction to order recount. result, and therefore the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction to order recount. result, and therefore the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction to order recount. 23. Respondent No. 2 has further argued that the objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 has further argued that the objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 has further argued that the objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 has further argued that the objections raised by the er with respect to maintainability of the election petition are misconceived. petitioner with respect to maintainability of the election petition are misconceived. er with respect to maintainability of the election petition are misconceived. er with respect to maintainability of the election petition are misconceived. The petition was presented within time and was entertained by the competent The petition was presented within time and was entertained by the competent The petition was presented within time and was entertained by the competent The petition was presented within time and was entertained by the competent Tribunal. The technical objections regarding deposit of fee or security cannot Tribunal. The technical objections regarding deposit of fee or security cannot Tribunal. The technical objections regarding deposit of fee or security cannot Tribunal. The technical objections regarding deposit of fee or security cannot right of a candidate to challenge an illegal election where defeat the substantial right of a candidate to challenge an illegal election where right of a candidate to challenge an illegal election where defeat the substantial prima facie irregularities in counting are shown. It is settled law that in election prima facie irregularities in counting are shown. It is settled law that in election prima facie irregularities in counting are shown. It is settled law that in election prima facie irregularities in counting are shown. It is settled law that in election matters, procedural lapses should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice, matters, procedural lapses should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice, matters, procedural lapses should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice, matters, procedural lapses should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice, f votes is narrow and fairness of the election is particularly where the margin of votes is narrow and fairness of the election is f votes is narrow and fairness of the election is particularly where the margin o under serious doubt. under serious doubt. 24. It has also been urged that the replies filed by the petitioner and other It has also been urged that the replies filed by the petitioner and other It has also been urged that the replies filed by the petitioner and other It has also been urged that the replies filed by the petitioner and other respondents are evasive and fail to meet the specific allegations levelled in the respondents are evasive and fail to meet the specific allegations levelled in the respondents are evasive and fail to meet the specific allegations levelled in the respondents are evasive and fail to meet the specific allegations levelled in the contended that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal election petition. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal contended that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal election petition. It is with clean hands and has concealed material facts. The election petition of with clean hands and has concealed material facts. The election petition of with clean hands and has concealed material facts. The election petition of with clean hands and has concealed material facts. The election petition of respondent No. 2 was based on clear, specific and detailed pleadings, and therefore respondent No. 2 was based on clear, specific and detailed pleadings, and therefore respondent No. 2 was based on clear, specific and detailed pleadings, and therefore respondent No. 2 was based on clear, specific and detailed pleadings, and therefore tion of the pleadings and evidence, rightly ordered the Tribunal, after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence, rightly ordered tion of the pleadings and evidence, rightly ordered the Tribunal, after due considera recount. 25. Thus, it is the stand of respondent No. 2 that the impugned order dated Thus, it is the stand of respondent No. 2 that the impugned order dated Thus, it is the stand of respondent No. 2 that the impugned order dated Thus, it is the stand of respondent No. 2 that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is fully justified and legal, having been passed to protect the sanctity of 12.09.2025 is fully justified and legal, having been passed to protect the sanctity of 12.09.2025 is fully justified and legal, having been passed to protect the sanctity of 12.09.2025 is fully justified and legal, having been passed to protect the sanctity of er requires no interference by this Court. the democratic process. The order requires no interference by this Court. the democratic process. The ord 26. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on several authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of a co- has placed reliance on several authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of a has placed reliance on several authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of a has placed reliance on several authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of a ordinate Bench of this ench of this Court in Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Gurmej Kaur, FAO No. Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Gurmej Kaur, FAO No. , wherein it was held that compliance with 4595 of 2009 decided on 12.01.2011, wherein it was held that compliance with , wherein it was held that compliance with 4595 of 2009 decided on 12.01.2011 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -10- - provisions relating to deposit of security and court fee is mandatory, the Tribunal provisions relating to deposit of security and court fee is mandatory, the Tribunal provisions relating to deposit of security and court fee is mandatory, the Tribunal provisions relating to deposit of security and court fee is mandatory, the Tribunal nd make has the discretion to allow the election petitioner to remove the defect and make has the discretion to allow the election petitioner to remove the defect a has the discretion to allow the election petitioner to remove the defect a compliance at the initial stage would not good the deficiency, and that non-compliance at the initial stage would not compliance at the initial stage would not good the deficiency, and that non automatically result in dismissal if the defect is subsequently cured. The Court automatically result in dismissal if the defect is subsequently cured. The Court automatically result in dismissal if the defect is subsequently cured. The Court automatically result in dismissal if the defect is subsequently cured. The Court emphasised that the provisions of Section 103 of the Punjab State Election emphasised that the provisions of Section 103 of the Punjab State Election emphasised that the provisions of Section 103 of the Punjab State Election emphasised that the provisions of Section 103 of the Punjab State Election 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules are not Commission Act, 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules are not 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules are not Commission Act, to be construed so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice, and opportunity ought to to be construed so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice, and opportunity ought to to be construed so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice, and opportunity ought to to be construed so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice, and opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to supply the requisite deposit. be given to the petitioner to supply the requisite deposit. be given to the petitioner to supply the requisite deposit. 27. judgment of the Hon’ble Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Reliance has also been placed on the Reliance has also been placed on the Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh & Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 55 , Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh & Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 55 , Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh & Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 55 , Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh & Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 55 , wherein it was observed that recount of votes may be ordered when a narrow wherein it was observed that recount of votes may be ordered when a narrow wherein it was observed that recount of votes may be ordered when a narrow wherein it was observed that recount of votes may be ordered when a narrow margin exists between the returned candidate and the defeated candidate, provided margin exists between the returned candidate and the defeated candidate, provid margin exists between the returned candidate and the defeated candidate, provid margin exists between the returned candidate and the defeated candidate, provid that the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case by placing necessary that the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case by placing necessary that the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case by placing necessary that the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case by placing necessary pleadings and evidence on record. The Court held that while secrecy of ballot is pleadings and evidence on record. The Court held that while secrecy of ballot is pleadings and evidence on record. The Court held that while secrecy of ballot is pleadings and evidence on record. The Court held that while secrecy of ballot is important, where allegations of improper rejection or counting of votes are important, where allegations of improper rejection or counting of votes are important, where allegations of improper rejection or counting of votes are important, where allegations of improper rejection or counting of votes are pecific pleadings, recount can be directed to uphold the sanctity of supported by specific pleadings, recount can be directed to uphold the sanctity of pecific pleadings, recount can be directed to uphold the sanctity of pecific pleadings, recount can be directed to uphold the sanctity of the election process. the election process. 28. Zile Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has further relied upon Zile Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has further relied upon Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has further relied upon Mahan Singh and Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 P&H 115, and Mahan Singh and Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 P&H 115 Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 P&H 115 istrate first class, Jagraon & ors, 1981 All India Land Singh v. Executive Magistrate first class, Jagraon & ors, 1981 All India Land istrate first class, Jagraon & ors, 1981 All India Land Singh v. Executive Mag , to contend that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Laws Reporter 135, to contend that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure , to contend that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Laws Reporter 135 can be applied to election petitions in a flexible manner, and that procedural can be applied to election petitions in a flexible manner, and that procedural can be applied to election petitions in a flexible manner, and that procedural can be applied to election petitions in a flexible manner, and that procedural o override substantive justice in election technicalities ought not to be allowed to override substantive justice in election o override substantive justice in election technicalities ought not to be allowed t matters. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -11- - 29. a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Additionally, reliance is placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Additionally, reliance is placed on Additionally, reliance is placed on , wherein the Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 463, wherein the Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 463 Court in Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 463 n establish through Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that if a candidate can establish through Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that if a candidate ca Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that if a candidate ca pleadings and prima facie evidence that certain votes have been wrongly counted pleadings and prima facie evidence that certain votes have been wrongly counted pleadings and prima facie evidence that certain votes have been wrongly counted pleadings and prima facie evidence that certain votes have been wrongly counted or rejected, recount may be ordered despite the secrecy of ballot, particularly when or rejected, recount may be ordered despite the secrecy of ballot, particularly when or rejected, recount may be ordered despite the secrecy of ballot, particularly when or rejected, recount may be ordered despite the secrecy of ballot, particularly when the margin of votes is narrow. the margin of votes is narrow. 30. Reliance is also placed upon Chandr Reliance is also placed upon ika Prasad Yadav v. State of Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of , in which it was held that recount can be directed Bihar, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 568, in which it was held that recount can be directed , in which it was held that recount can be directed Bihar, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 568 where the material facts pleaded disclose a serious irregularity and where the where the material facts pleaded disclose a serious irregularity and where the where the material facts pleaded disclose a serious irregularity and where the where the material facts pleaded disclose a serious irregularity and where the n of victory. number of disputed votes exceeds or is likely to affect the margin of victory. number of disputed votes exceeds or is likely to affect the margi number of disputed votes exceeds or is likely to affect the margi 31. n the strength of these authorities, learned counsel for respondent On the strength of these authorities, learned counsel for respondent n the strength of these authorities, learned counsel for respondent n the strength of these authorities, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that the present case is a fit one for recount, as the margin No. 2 has argued that the present case is a fit one for recount, as the margin No. 2 has argued that the present case is a fit one for recount, as the margin No. 2 has argued that the present case is a fit one for recount, as the margin between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was only 11 votes, and the allegations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was only 11 votes, and the allegations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was only 11 votes, and the allegations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was only 11 votes, and the allegations egal rejection and fraudulent counting have been specifically pleaded in the of illegal rejection and fraudulent counting have been specifically pleaded in the egal rejection and fraudulent counting have been specifically pleaded in the egal rejection and fraudulent counting have been specifically pleaded in the election petition and deposed to by the witnesses. Thus, the Tribunal committed no election petition and deposed to by the witnesses. Thus, the Tribunal committed no election petition and deposed to by the witnesses. Thus, the Tribunal committed no election petition and deposed to by the witnesses. Thus, the Tribunal committed no illegality in ordering recount vide impugned order dated 12.09.2025. illegality in ordering recount vide impugned order dated 12.09.2025. illegality in ordering recount vide impugned order dated 12.09.2025. Relief Granted By The Tribunal Relief Granted By The Tribu 32. By the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, the Election Tribunal By the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, the Election Tribunal By the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, the Election Tribunal By the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, the Election Tribunal concluded that there were deficiencies in the counting process and ordered concluded that there were deficiencies in the counting process and ordered concluded that there were deficiencies in the counting process and ordered concluded that there were deficiencies in the counting process and ordered Phullo recounting of votes of the election to the office of Sarpanch of village Phullo recounting of votes of the election to the office of Sarpanch of village recounting of votes of the election to the office of Sarpanch of village Mithi, to be held on 29.09.202 5 at 10:00 AM under videography, in the presence of , to be held on 29.09.2025 at 10:00 AM under videography, in the presence of 5 at 10:00 AM under videography, in the presence of designated officials and with police security arrangements. designated officials and with police security arrangements. designated officials and with police security arrangements. Findings 33. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the statutory Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the statutory Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the statutory Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the statutory ed by judicial provisions, the evidence adduced, and the rival contentions supported by judicial provisions, the evidence adduced, and the rival contentions support provisions, the evidence adduced, and the rival contentions support TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -12- - precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal is not legally sustainable. passed by the Election Tribunal is not legally sustainable. passed by the Election Tribunal is not legally sustainable. 34. At the very threshold, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding At the very threshold, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding At the very threshold, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding At the very threshold, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding limitation and non deposit of the mandatory court fee and security cannot be non-deposit of the mandatory court fee and security cannot be deposit of the mandatory court fee and security cannot be brushed aside as a mere technicality. Section 76 of the Punjab State Election brushed aside as a mere technicality. Section 76 of the Punjab State Election brushed aside as a mere technicality. Section 76 of the Punjab State Election brushed aside as a mere technicality. Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 fixes a strict period of 45 days for presentation of an Commission Act, 1994 fixes a strict period of 45 days for presentation of an Commission Act, 1994 fixes a strict period of 45 days for presentation of an Commission Act, 1994 fixes a strict period of 45 days for presentation of an d on 15.10.2024 and the limitation expired election petition. The election was held on 15.10.2024 and the limitation expired d on 15.10.2024 and the limitation expired election petition. The election was hel on 29.11.2024. Although the petition is dated 22.11.2024, it was in fact entertained on 29.11.2024. Although the petition is dated 22.11.2024, it was in fact entertained on 29.11.2024. Although the petition is dated 22.11.2024, it was in fact entertained on 29.11.2024. Although the petition is dated 22.11.2024, it was in fact entertained by the Tribunal only on 02.12.2024, by which date the limitation had already by the Tribunal only on 02.12.2024, by which date the limitation had already by the Tribunal only on 02.12.2024, by which date the limitation had already by the Tribunal only on 02.12.2024, by which date the limitation had already ion of delay and unlike expired. Election law does not provide for condonation of delay and unlike expired. Election law does not provide for condonat expired. Election law does not provide for condonat ordinary civil suits, the provisions are mandatory and rigid. Therefore, the election ordinary civil suits, the provisions are mandatory and rigid. Therefore, the election ordinary civil suits, the provisions are mandatory and rigid. Therefore, the election ordinary civil suits, the provisions are mandatory and rigid. Therefore, the election petition was ex facie barred by limitation. petition was ex facie barred by limitation. 35. Coupled with this, Section 103 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules Coupled with this, Section 103 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules Coupled with this, Section 103 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules Coupled with this, Section 103 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules d court fee at the time of presentation. Admittedly, mandate deposit of security and court fee at the time of presentation. Admittedly, d court fee at the time of presentation. Admittedly, mandate deposit of security an the challan evidencing such deposit was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. The the challan evidencing such deposit was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. The the challan evidencing such deposit was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. The the challan evidencing such deposit was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. The
Arguments
Submissions of learned counsel for Petitioner of learned counsel for the Petitioner 7. The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order asserting that the election petition presented by respondent No. 2 was not asserting that the election petition presented by respondent No. 2 was not asserting that the election petition presented by respondent No. 2 was not asserting that the election petition presented by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable from the very inception as it was filed without compliance of the maintainable from the very inception as it was filed without compliance of the maintainable from the very inception as it was filed without compliance of the maintainable from the very inception as it was filed without compliance of the f the Punjab State Election Commission mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Punjab State Election Commission f the Punjab State Election Commission mandatory provisions of Section 103 o Act, 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, inasmuch as Act, 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, inasmuch as Act, 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, inasmuch as Act, 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, inasmuch as the deposit of security for costs and deposit of court fee is required to be made at the deposit of security for costs and deposit of court fee is required to be made at the deposit of security for costs and deposit of court fee is required to be made at the deposit of security for costs and deposit of court fee is required to be made at ule 53 mandates that the election the time of presentation of election petition, and Rule 53 mandates that the election the time of presentation of election petition, and R the time of presentation of election petition, and R TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -4- - compliance. In the present ribunal shall dismiss the election petition for such non-compliance. In the present ribunal shall dismiss the election petition for such non Tribunal shall dismiss the election petition for such non case, no such deposit was made along with the presentation of the election petition case, no such deposit was made along with the presentation of the election petition case, no such deposit was made along with the presentation of the election petition case, no such deposit was made along with the presentation of the election petition ated 02.12.2024 illegally on 22.11.2024, and instead, the tribunal vide order dated 02.12.2024 illegally on 22.11.2024, and instead, the tribunal vide order d on 22.11.2024, and instead, the tribunal vide order d allowed respondent No. 2 an opportunity to deposit the court fee at a later date, allowed respondent No. 2 an opportunity to deposit the court fee at a later date, allowed respondent No. 2 an opportunity to deposit the court fee at a later date, allowed respondent No. 2 an opportunity to deposit the court fee at a later date, whereafter the challan was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. Such later deposit whereafter the challan was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. Such later deposit whereafter the challan was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. Such later deposit whereafter the challan was placed on record only on 09.01.2025. Such later deposit does not cure the defect. Reliance is placed upon does not cure the defect ’ble Supreme . Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lachhman Lachhman Das versus Jagat Ram [ where it has [(2007) 10 SCC 448] where it has been categorically held that deposit of court fee or security at the time of been categorically held that deposit of court fee or security at the time of been categorically held that deposit of court fee or security at the time of been categorically held that deposit of court fee or security at the time of presentation is mandatory and failure renders the election petition incompetent. presentation is mandatory and failure renders the election petition incompetent. presentation is mandatory and failure renders the election petition incompetent. 8. en further asserted by counsel for the petitioner that the It has been further asserted by counsel for the petitioner that the en further asserted by counsel for the petitioner that the It has be election petition was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 76 of the election petition was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 76 of the election petition was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 76 of the election petition was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 which provides that an election Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 which provides that an election Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 which provides that an election Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 which provides that an election s of the date of election of the returned petition must be filed within forty-five days of the date of election of the returned s of the date of election of the returned petition must be filed within forty candidate. The election in the present case was held on 15.10.2024 and the period candidate. The election in the present case was held on 15.10.2024 and the period candidate. The election in the present case was held on 15.10.2024 and the period candidate. The election in the present case was held on 15.10.2024 and the period five days expired on 29.11.2024, whereas the election petition was taken of forty-five days expired on 29.11.2024, whereas the election petition was taken five days expired on 29.11.2024, whereas the election petition was taken five days expired on 29.11.2024, whereas the election petition was taken the prescribed limitation. It up by the Tribunal on 02.12.2024, which was beyond the prescribed limitation. It up by the Tribunal on 02.12.2024, which was beyond up by the Tribunal on 02.12.2024, which was beyond is noted in the record itself that no notification had even been issued by the is noted in the record itself that no notification had even been issued by the is noted in the record itself that no notification had even been issued by the is noted in the record itself that no notification had even been issued by the Government authorising the Tribunal to hear petitions by that date, and therefore Government authorising the Tribunal to hear petitions by that date, and therefore Government authorising the Tribunal to hear petitions by that date, and therefore Government authorising the Tribunal to hear petitions by that date, and therefore matters is strict and the petition was delayed by 47 days. The limitation in election matters is strict and the petition was delayed by 47 days. The limitation in election the petition was delayed by 47 days. The limitation in election rigid and cannot be condoned, as the election law is a special law where statutory rigid and cannot be condoned, as the election law is a special law where statutory rigid and cannot be condoned, as the election law is a special law where statutory rigid and cannot be condoned, as the election law is a special law where statutory requirements are mandatory, unlike in ordinary civil suits where curable defects requirements are mandatory, unlike in ordinary civil suits where curable defects requirements are mandatory, unlike in ordinary civil suits where curable defects requirements are mandatory, unlike in ordinary civil suits where curable defects may be condoned. may be condoned. 9. the petitioner that It has also been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that It has also been asserted by learned counsel for It has also been asserted by learned counsel for there were no proper pleadings in the election petition with respect to any material there were no proper pleadings in the election petition with respect to any material there were no proper pleadings in the election petition with respect to any material there were no proper pleadings in the election petition with respect to any material irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes, and even otherwise no cogent irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes, and even otherwise no cogent irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes, and even otherwise no cogent irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes, and even otherwise no cogent TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.25 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6772-2025 (O&M) -5- - ordered evidence was led to establish the same. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered evidence was led to establish the same. Recounting of votes cannot be evidence was led to establish the same. Recounting of votes cannot be merely for the asking of a party but only upon specific pleadings supported by merely for the asking of a party but only upon specific pleadings supported by merely for the asking of a party but only upon specific pleadings supported by merely for the asking of a party but only upon specific pleadings supported by