Lakhwinder Kaur vs Shakuntla Devi and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This appeal is directed against order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cuti-Presiding Officer Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur by which an election petition, filed by the appellant-Lakhwinder Kaur, u/s 74 & 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short ''the Act'') challenging the election of Shakuntla Devi-respondent No. 1, has been dismissed.

In brief, the facts of the case are that general elections to constitute Panchayats in the State of Punjab, were held on 26.5.2008, including the Gram Panchayat, Kot Santokh Rai, Block Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, which comprises of nine members out of which 4 Panches were elected from General category, 2 from General Category (Ladies), 1 from Scheduled Caste category, 1 from Scheduled Caste (Lady) and 1 from Backward Class. The appellant was returned from the constituency of General category whereas respondent No. 1 returned from the constituency of female Scheduled Caste category. As the post of Sarpanch was reserved for female Scheduled Caste category, therefore, present election petition was filed by the appellant on the ground that though she has secured 135 votes, respondent secured 15 votes whereas she had contested in the category of Scheduled Caste (lady) Panch, the returning officer has illegally declared her elected in the General category.

The election petition has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that in the nomination paper filed by the appellant, she has categorically mentioned herself contesting in General category,

Learned Counsel for the appellant has, inter alia, argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the facts available on record because the nomination paper of the appellant itself shows that she is a Scheduled Caste as she belongs to Bazigar community and has deposited Rs. 50/- towards election fee at the time of filing of nomination paper. It is submitted by him that in terms of proviso to Rule 9(5) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Elections Rules, 1994 (for short ''the Rules'') candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or Backward Class is required to pay half of the fee specified in Rule 9(5) of the Rules i.e. in a case where candidate belonging to General category has to pay Rs. 100/-, candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes has to pay Rs. 50/- It is further submitted that since Rs. 50/- has been paid by the appellant, therefore, she should have been considered in the Scheduled Caste category rather than General category.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance.

There is a total fallacy in the argument raised by learned Counsel for the appellant because, admittedly, the appellant has filled her nomination paper in the General category Panch. It is altogether different that she belongs to Scheduled Caste because a Scheduled Caste can contest in General category but the General category candidate cannot contest in the Scheduled Caste category. Moreover, she had paid Rs. 50/- not for the reasons that she was contesting in Scheduled Caste category but because of the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Undisputedly, the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste and had deposited Rs. 50/- as fee because the person who belongs to Scheduled Caste is entitled to a rebate of 50% in fee under proviso to Rule 9(5) of the Rules but in the nomination paper, she has specifically chosen the constituency of General category and it is the choice of the appellant is to be considered in which she had contested the election and not the amount which has been paid by her because of her belonging to a Scheduled Caste as a Scheduled Caste can always contest in the General category.

In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Court below. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.