HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections were to take place for the offices of Panches for Gram Panchayat Bhikhiwind on 29.6.2003. Nominations papers were filed by the appellants and Bachan Singh respondent on 19.6.2003. Scrutiny had taken place on 20.6.2003 but the nomination papers filed by Bachan Singh, respondent No.1 were rejected by Manjit Singh, Returning Officer, respondent No.2. The appellants were declared elected. Bachan Singh filed Election Petition on the plea that his nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer illegally and without any reason.

(2.) The appellants filed the written reply and contested the Election Petition. The learned Election Tribunal found that the nomination papers of Bachan Singh respondent were rejected for the reason that his age was shown less as per voter list. The only difference was that in the voter list, his age was mentioned to be 60 years while in the nomination papers, Bachan Singh had mentioned his age to be about 60 years. The learned Election Tribunal reached the conclusion that nomination papers of Bachan Singh were rejected illegally and without valid reasons. Accordingly,the Election Petition was accepted by the learned Election Tribunal vide order dated 30.9.2005 and the elections of the appellants were set aside. The Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh was requested to conduct a fresh election for the six Panches of Gram Panchayat of village Bhikhiwind. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. Section 41(2) of the State Election Commission Act, 1994 (in short Act of 1994) empowers the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers of the candidates on any of the following grounds:-

(3.) No case was made out for rejection of nomination papers of Bachan Singh respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer either under clause (a) or clause (b) read with Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1994.The grounds pleaded by the Returning Officer do not fall within Section 41(2)(a) or Section 41(2)(b) read with Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1994. Therefore, the rejection of nomination papers of Bachan Singh,respondent No.1 is proved to be illegal and without basis. Section 41(4) of the Act, 1994 lays down that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. In spite of this embargo on the powers of the Returning Officer, he still rejected the nomination papers of Bachan Singh, respondent No.1 without there being any defect of a substantial character. Such a Returning Officer like Manjit Singh, respondent No.2 deserves prosecution as he had played havoc in the election process.