Isrial vs State of Haryana

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13th October, 2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathin, exercising the powers of Election Tribunal under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (here-in-after referred to as the Act), whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Mohdamaka was held on 10th June, 2010. The result was declared on that very day. The petitioner filed an election petition, u/s 176(1) of the Act for challenging the validity of the election of Sarpanch after the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of declaration of the result. The election petition before the Civil Court, exercising the powers of Election Tribunal, was filed on 17th July, 2010 after expiry of 30 days of limitation prescribed under the Act. It was the case of the petitioner before the Civil Court that he could not file the election petition in time since the Court was on vacation till 15th July, 2010 and it opened on 16th July, 2010 and on that very day, the election petition could not be filed. However, same was filed on 17th July 2010. It was also one of the grounds that on 16th July, 2010, the advocates were on strike, which resulted in delay and application for condonation of delay was also filed.

After considering the contentions of the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathin dismissed the election petition on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner at the time of filing the election petition. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is admitted by counsel for the petitioner that when the petition was filed, the petitioner was not present. In view of Section 176(1) of the Act, election petition is to be presented by the election petitioner in person. Non-compliance of this statutory provision would mean that election petition was not validly presented. Therefore, the same was rendered liable to be rejected on this sole ground. In this regard reliance can be placed upon judgment of this Court in Gurlal Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others, 2010(5) RCR (Civil) 474, Major Singh Vs. Pesiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.) and Others, , Fazruddin Vs. Abdul Gafooor and others, C.R. No. 4511, decided on 18.4.2012 and Dindar Vs. Yamin and Another,

Even if the delay is deemed to have been condoned by the Court, even then election petition is liable to be dismissed since it was not validly presented in view of the provisions of the Act and settled law on the subject.

In view of the fact that since the election petition was not presented in person by the election petitioner as per the mandatory provisions contained in Section 176(1) of the Act, the same has been rightly dismissed.

In view of above, I do not find any merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Dismissed.