Rajbir Singh vs State of Haryana

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the election as Sarpanch of respondent No. 4, namely, Balbir Singh on the ground that he was not qualified to contest the election as per provisions of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules).

It is the case of the petitioner that elections of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar were held on 19.12.1994 in which besides the petitioner, respondent No. 4, namely, Balbir Singh and Jamadar and Harpal contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Balbir Singh, respondent No. 4 was declared duly elected. His election has been challenged in this petition on the ground that respondent No. 4 was registered as voter of village Fakir Majra and the said village falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Boothgarh, District Yamuna Nagar and his wife is also registered as voter in the same village, therefore, he could not contest the election'' to Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan. It has also been stated that on objection raised against the names of respondent No. 4 and his wife being included in Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan, Deputy Commis-sioner-cum-District Electoral Officer, Yamuna Nagar, ordered deletion of their names from the voters list of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan. The City Magistrate, after finalisation of voters list, ordered publication of the same on 20.10.1994 as provided under Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Election Rules. It has further been alleged that although voters list became final, respondent No. 4 exercising his influence on the District Electoral Officer, got himself and the name of his wife registered in the voters list of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan. The order of District Electoral Officer vide which names of respondent No. 4. and his wife have been included, is also being challenged being without jurisdiction.

Two sets of written statements have been filed, one by the official respondents and the other by respondent No. 4, the contesting respondent. In the written statement, besides taking preliminary objection, respondents have questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Article 226 of the Consituation of India on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any election petition in Civil Court within 30 days after the date of declaration of result of the elections. They have also averred that the writ petition involves disputed facts and the petitioner has concealed material facts from the notice of this court. Respondents have denied that election of respondent No. 4 is not legal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. It has come on record that father of respondent No. 4, Mohinder Singh was a Member of Gram Panchayat, Marwa Kalan for the years 1975-80,1980-85 and 1985-90 and respondent No. 4 himself was Member, Gram Panchayat during 1988-91. As per voters list of State Assembly Constituency for the year 1989, respondent No. 4 and his wife are shown, as voters in Part 108 at number 760 and 761 which is apparent from Annexure R/4-1. Respondent No. 4, his wife and children have a ration card in village Marwa Kalan and his daughters are also studying in village Marwa Kalan as is clear from the school certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School. Reading of various annexxures brought on record by respondent No. 4 along with his written statement has revealed that respondent No. 4 is a permanent resident of village Marwa Kalan where he owns agricultural land. Petitioner has though stated in this petition that on an objection filed by him, the names of respondent No. 4 and his wife were deleted from the voters list of village Marwa Kalan, yet he has not disclosed whether before their names were ordered to be deleted, any notice was served on respondent No. 4 or his wife. During the course of hearing, counsel was asked,to show from the record whether any notice was ordered to be served or was actually served but he was not in a position to refer to any such document. Respondent No. 4 in his written statement has categorically stated-that before deletion of his name, no notice was served on him or his Wife. He has further stated that on coming to know of deletion of his name, he on 22.10.1994 represented to the District Electoral Officer, Yamunanagar who got the matter enquired from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, who in his report brought it to the notice of respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 4 and his wife are permanent residents of village Marwa Kalan and their name''s have been wrongly deleted. On having been satisfied that the deletion of their names was wrong, respondent No. 2 ordered the inclusion of the names of respondent No. 4. The argument that since the name of respondent No. 4 stood deleted from the list, inclusion of his name after the last date for publication of final electoral roll is without jurisdiction, is devoid of any merit. Names of respondent No. 4 or his wife who were permanent residents of village Marwa Kalan, has been recorded as voters of village Marwa Kalan in the State Assembly prepared for Sadhaura constituency; could not have been deleted from the list of voters of village Marwa Kalan without any notice particularly when it was to the knowledge of the authorities that he had earlier contested election of Sarpanch in the year 1991 and prior to that he was Member of Panchayat from 1988-91. The order deleting his name was totally without jurisdiction and has rightly been rectified by the District Electoral Officer, Yamuna Nagar. Under Rule 10 of the Election Rules, District Electoral Officer is empowered to amend the voters'' list. Under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Election Rules, voters'' list so amended is final. Admittedly, election took place, on the basis of voters'' list which was amended on inclusion of the name of respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot make a grievance that the same was amended after the expiry of last date for publication.

Resultantry, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.