Lakhi Ram vs Ram Singh and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18th May, 1984 passed by

the Additional District Judge, Sonepat confirming that of Illaqa Magistrate, Sonepat dated 25th January, 1984, whereby the election of Petitioner

Lakhi Ram at a Sarpanch was set aside

The election of the Sarpanch of Oram Panchayat of village Mehandipur. Tehsil and District Sonepat was held on 27-6-1983. After the contest,

the Returning Officer declared Lakhi Ram Petitioner as the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat and tabulated the result as follows:

Total votes polled 1030 votes.

Lakhi Ram 472 votes.

Ran Singh 465 votes.

Ram Mehar 93 votes.

The said election was challenged by Ran Singh by filing an election petition u/s 13(c) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act of 1952. According to the

allegations made in the election petition, Lakhi Ram was wrongly declared as a Sarpanch whereas in fact Ran Singh secured maximum votes and

that the Returning Officer had wrongly declared Lakhi Ram Petitioner as the Sarpanch which had been got declared with the connivance of the

Returning Officer as well as that of Lakhi Ram. According to Ran Singh, the Returning Officer had wrongly stated that 1030 votes had been polled

whereas the total votes which had been polled were 1038 votes and the votes which were polled are as under:

Ran Singh 478 votes.

Lakhi Ram 467 votes.

Ram Mehar 93 votes.

In the written statement filed on behalf of Lakhi Ram, all these allegationS were denied. However, the Illaqa Magistrate with powers of the

prescribed authority under the Act, ordered recounting of the votes on an application made by Ran Singh on September 20, 1983. It was found at

that time that the election record had been tampered with, but after counting the votes it was found that the tabulation as given by Ran Singh in his

election petition was correct. Ultimately vide judgment dated 25-1-1984, the prescribed authority set aside the election declaring Lakhi Ram as

Sarpanch of the village on the ground that it was obvious that the election records have been tampered with and it could not be established as and

when the election records have been tampered with. However, the plea of Ran Singh that he be declared as a Sarpanch was rejected. In appeal

the learned District Judge confirmed the said order of the prescribed authority and thus maintained the order setting aside the election of Lakhi

Ram. Dissatisfied with the same, Lakhi Ram has filed this present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The main contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that once it was found that the election records have been tampered with then the election

could not be set aside on the basis of such record. According to the Learned Counsel even the learned Additional District Judge observed in his

order that it is a pity that the election contested by the candidates had to go waste not due to their faults but due to the mischief of some official

who has succeeded in removing the seals of the relevant packets It is a matter which requires proper enquiry to fix up the responsibility for the

tampering of the record so that our electors should have faith in the Government machinery Thus argued the Learned Counsel that in view of the

said observations, the election of the Petitioner has been wrongly set aside.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no election could be set aside en the basis of the election

record which was found to be tampered with. It is not the case of Ran Singh that the said record was tampered by the elected candidate Lakhi

Ram or by the Returning Officer. It it why that the learned Additional District Judge observed that it is a matter which requires proper enquiry to fix

up the responsibility for tampering of the record If the elected candidate or the Returning Officer was not responsible for tampering of the record,

then the election could not be set aside on that ground. Even the rules framed under the Act do not contemplate that the election can be set aside

on the basis of the record which is found to be tampered with. It is the common case of the parties that the election was sought to be set aside on

the ground that Rules 35 and 36 of the Gram Panchayat Election Rules were violated. It has no where been found by the prescribed authority or

by the learned Additional District Judge that there was any violation of the said two rules. Unless there was any violation of the rules under the Act,

no election could be set aside. Simply because on recounting by the Court, it was fourd that the result declared was wrong, the election could not

be set aside because admittedly it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the record when it reached the Court was found

to be tampered with. Even the Illaqa Magistrate i.e. the prescribed authority observed that:

the evidence produced by Respondent No. 1 does not prove that at what stage the record was tampered. From the statement of RW-5, it is seen

that the election record have been tampered but as has been stated above, at what stage the record was tampered, the Respondent No. 1 has not

been able to prove it.

No specific finding has been given by either of the authorities below that which rule has been violated under which the election could be set aside.

As observed earlier, simply because, the result was found to be otherwise on recounting on the basis of the record was found tempered with the

election could not be declared invalid

It was argued on behalf of the Respondent that scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was different and therefore the

findings arrived at by the authorities below could not be set aside in this petition. Reference in this behalf was made to Nagendra Nath Bora and

Another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, . However, I do not find any merit in this contention. Once it is

found by the Court that on the findings arrived at by the authorities below, the election could not be set aside, there is ample scope under Article

227 of the Constitution of India to intervene in the same and declare that the orders passed are illegal and without jurisciction. In this view of the

matter, the petition is allowed with costs and orders of the Additional District Judge dated 18-5-1984 and that of the Illaqa Magistrate dated 25-

1-1984 are hereby quashed. The election petition filed on behalf of Ran Singh stands dismissed.