Sarabjit Singh vs Presiding Officer and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The Appellant was elected as Panch in the Backward Category for Gram Panchayat, Pachhia, Block Ajnala, and District Amritsar. His election was challenged by Respondent No. 5-Jaswant Singh on the ground that his nomination papers were wrongly rejected.

Initially, the election petition was being tried by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. However, on 30.12.2008, in terms of transfer of jurisdiction to hear election petitions pertaining to the area of Ajnala, the same was transferred to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, who accepted the election petition vide order dated 2.6.2009 setting aside the election of the Appellant. It is against this order that the Appellant is before this Court.

At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the following contentions of learned Counsel for the Appellant were recorded:

Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the election of the Appellant as panch was set aside on the ground that the nomination papers of the Respondent were wrongly rejected.

It is further stated that after filing of the election petition and also filing of the reply the election petition was suddenly stood transferred from the court of ADC-cum-Election Tribunal to that of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. No notice for the FAO No. 4018 of 2009 [2]

same was given to the Appellant. Still further, the Court to which the election petition was transferred passed an ex-parte order dated 2.6.2009 without issuing any notice and providing any hearing.

Thereafter, the petition to set aside the ex-parte order was also dismissed without hearing.

At the very out-set, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 raised a preliminary objection that the Appellant in the present case had mis-stated the facts while presenting his case before this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion and on that basis, even an interim order was also passed in his favour. He submitted that the election petition was transferred by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vide order dated 30.12.2008 in the presence of counsels for both the parties. The parties were directed to appear before the transferee Tribunal on 15.1.2009. On 15.1.2009, in the absence of Presiding Officer of the transferee Tribunal, the matter was adjourned by the Law Officer. Subsequent thereto, on 23.1.2009, 13.2.2009, 3.3.2009, 9.3.2009 and 18.3.2009, counsels for both the parties appeared before the transferee Tribunal, when hearing in the election petition was adjourned. It was only on 8.4.2009, in the absence of counsel for the Appellant, that Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar directed the Appellant to be proceeded against ex parte. Considering the aforesaid facts, the submission is that the statement made by the Appellant at the time of issuance of notice of motion and passing of interim order in his favour on 12.8.2009 is patently false.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant could not dispute the presence of his counsel before the transferee Tribunal on the dates mentioned aforesaid. However, he submitted that on account of holiday being declared in the offices of the State of Punjab, on 30.3.2009, on account of the demise of Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, a Minister in the Government of Punjab, the case was adjourned further, but no date of hearing was notified to the Appellant. Certain more contentions on the merits of the controversy were raised.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, considering the fact that at the initial stage, interim order was obtained by the Appellant by mis-statement of facts as it has been established from a perusal of record that counsel for the Appellant was present on 30.12.2008 before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, who was exercising the powers of the Election Tribunal at the relevant time, when the election petition was directed to be transferred to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and the parties were directed to put in appearance on 15.1.2009. On 15.1.2009 and for five dates thereafter, the FAO No. 4018 of 2009 [3]

Appellant was represented through his counsel before the transferee Tribunal. Accordingly, the contention of the Appellant that no notice was given to him before the transfer of the petition to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar or after the transfer is factually incorrect.

8 The argument of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the case having not been taken up on 30.3.2009 on account of the demise of the Minister in the State of Punjab, a date was required to be informed to him does not carry any weight, considering the fact that the Appellant was represented through a counsel before the Election Tribunal and in case there is an adjournment on account of an unforeseen eventuality, it is the duty of the counsel representing the Appellant as well as the Appellant to enquire about the date fixed in the case.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.