Ram Singh vs Civil Judge, (Senior Division) and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this petition, prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 30.7.1998, Annexure P-3, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sirsa whereby the election of the petitioner for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dharmapura held on 31.12.1995 has been set aside and respondent No. 2, namely, Niranjan Lal son of Ganga Ram has been declared to be duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dharmapura in place of the petitioner.

The election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dharmapura was held on 31.12.1995. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 contested the election. Petitioner was declared as duly elected to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa against the petitioner for setting aside and quashing the election result and for declaring respondent No. 2 as winner for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dharampura. Petitioner contested the election petition, denying the grounds taken therein for quashing the result of election of the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, held that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of Panchayat land on the date of filing the nomination papers as well as on the date of holding election for the post of Sarpanch and, therefore, petitioner could not contest the election. The learned Civil Judge, thus, held that nomination papers of the petitioner were illegally accepted and consequently, set aside the election of the petitioner for the post of Sarpanch and declared respondent No. 2 to be duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dharampura in place of petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 2 did not raise any objection in regard to validity of nomination papers of the petitioner at the time of their scrutiny before the Returning Officer and therefore, after the petitioner had been elected as Sarpanch, the election petition on the ground that nomination papers of the petitioner were illegally accepted, was not competent. Counsel also contended that election to the post of Sarpanch could be challenged through an election petition only on the grounds specified in Section 176(4) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short the Act). It is contended that illegal acceptance of nomination papers is not one of the grounds specified in Section 176(4) of the Act. Reference in this regard has been made to two judgments of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Anju Vs. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Others, and Lal Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Others, .

After hearing the learned Counsel and going through the record, I am of the view that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch on the ground that his nomination papers could not have been accepted as he was in unauthorised possession of panchayat land. Section 176(4) of the Act lays down the grounds on which election can be avoided. The section is exhaustive of such grounds. Right to be elected and liability to be unseated are created by the Constitution, relevant statute, Rules and Orders. Unless the grounds u/s 176(4) are proved, no election of a successful candidate can be set aside. In Smt. Anju Vs. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Others, in reference to Section 176(4), the Full Bench of this Court has settled that two grounds on which election could be challenged are; (a) that the returned candidate committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (5), (b) that some irregularities or illegalities were committed during the course of counting on which plea the Court may scrutiny and counting of votes and declare the candidate who is found to have largest number of valid votes in his favour to be duly elected. The earlier view of this court in Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. The State Election Commissioner, Haryana and others, that illegal rejection or acceptance of nomination papers would also constitute a ground in the election petition had not been accepted to be laying down correct law. The judgment in Guddi Devi''s case has been specifically over-ruled by the Full Bench in Smt. Anuj''s case (supra). The question as to whether election could be challenged through an election petition on a ground other than the one specified in Section 176(4) also came up for consideration before another Full Bench in Gopal Krishan Jiwan Kumar and Another Vs. Puran Singh and Others, . The Full Bench reiterated and affirmed the view taken in Smt. Anuj''s case (supra).

In view of the binding precedent of the two Full Benches in Smt. Anuj''s and Lal Chand''s case (supra) the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.7.1998, Annexure P-3, shall stand quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to hand over the charge of the post of Sarpanch to the petitioner forthwith. No cost.