NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, KAPURTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Niranjan Singh, petitioner, filed the election petition on October 24, 1983 against the election of Joginder Singh, respondent No. 3, as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach of the District Judge in this behalf was wrong because the total vets polled were 69 and in case these three votes are not subtracted from the votes polled by Joginder Singh, respondent, the number of polled votes will go to 693, which according to the learned counsel was not the case of either party. It was also contended that in the earlier order of the prescribed authority it had been found as a fact that these three bogus votes which were declared tendered later on, were polled in favour of Jogindar Singh, respondent, and that being so, they were rightly subtracted from the polled votes in his favour. According to the learned counsel the view taken by the learned District Judge in this behalf was wrong and illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Joginder Singh, respondent, submitted that the earlier order of the prescribed authority was set aside in appeal when the case was remanded and, therefore, no reference could be made by the prescribed authority to that order. Since no reference has been made to any evidence, the finding given by the prescribed authority in this behalf, i.e., that these three bogus votes ware polled in favour of Joginder Singh, respondent, was without any evidence. Not only that, argued the learned counsel, there should have been a further finding that there three persons had not cast their votes earlier in favour of Niranjan Singh petitioner. In any case, according to the learned counsel, since it has been found as a fact by the learned District Judge that these three bogus votes were not polled in favour of Joginder Singh, respondent, that finding of fact could not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The earlier order of the prescribed authority was set aside in appeal and the case was remanded for deciding the same afresh with the direction that it should exhibit the tendered votes in the presence of the parties and then after hearing the parties, decide the election petition giving a clear finding in whose favour the tendered votes were cast and which of the candidates should be declared elected as Sarpanch. This being a specific direction, it was obligatory on the part of the prescribed authority to go into the evidence again and not to refer to the findings given earlier by the prescribed authority. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge rightly observed :-