BALDEV SINGH Vs. SHINDER PAL SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 19,2006

BALDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
SHINDER PAL SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHANDRIKA PARSHAD YADAV V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
P K K SHAMSUDEEN VS. K A M MAPPILLAI MOHTNDEEN [REFERRED TO]
T A AHAMMED KABEER VS. A A AZEEZ [REFERRED TO]
M CHINNASAMY VS. K C PALANISAMY [REFERRED TO]
GURSEWAK SINGH VS. AVTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DARBARA SINGH GURU VS. MOHAMMAD SADIQUE [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-275] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALJIT KAUR VS. JASBIR KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-850] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITHA MAHESH VS. CHIEF ELCTION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
BABLI SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. ARCHANA VS. SMT. PREMLATA AND 9 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
SARWAN SINGH SON OF SANTA SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-9-203] [REFERRED]
ANUP SINGH VS. DALER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-386] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN CHANDRA NAYAK VS. HARISH CHANDRA JENA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAM RATAN [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY MISHRIMAL PANAMIYA VS. SANJAY MISHRIMAL PUNAMIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT NARAIN RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
ANIMESH KUMAR RAI @ GUDDU RAI @ ANIMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ABHILAKH VS. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHINGA SHRAWASTI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2011-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
LILLU RAM VS. THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DIVISION), GURGAON [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
RADHE SHYAM DHAKAD VS. JAIVARDHAN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-133] [REFERRED]
MADAN MOHAN VS. ARUN SHOURIE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
MANDRADA LAXMI VS. BALAGA RAMULU [LAWS(ORI)-2014-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
K. KRISHNARAJ HEGDE VS. ANIL C. LOBO AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU SINGH VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT KAUR VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-ELECTION TRIBUNAL [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR NISHAD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-72] [REFERRED]
RAMA RANJAN MOHANTY VS. BIJAYA KUMAR PADHIHARI AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL MANSA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-246] [REFERRED TO]
NATWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2013-4-187] [REFERRED]
BRIJENDRA KUMAR VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAHOBA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
KHANAGOUDAR SHIVAGOUDAPPA BALAPPA VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-4-291] [REFERRED TO]
GYANENDRA ALIA CHOTU VS. ANOOP CHAND [LAWS(MPH)-2009-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH SETHI VS. ADIKANDA PALATA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. ISHWARI SURENDRA KASHYAP W/O YASHWANT KASHYAP VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
BHABANI PAKREY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
DEVINDER SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMLA [LAWS(HPH)-2010-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANNA KUMAR VS. G M SIDDESHWAR [LAWS(KAR)-2010-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
JELLELLA ANJAIAH VS. LOKANI SOMAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
TEXMACO LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
KATTINOKKULA MURALI KRISHNA VS. VEERAMALLA KOTESWARA RAO [LAWS(SC)-2009-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KRISHNA SHETTY VS. DINAKAR KESHAV SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINBHAI KAMSUBHAI RATHOD VS. BHAILALBHAI KALUBHAI PANDAV [LAWS(GJH)-2020-5-307] [REFERRED TO]
BIBHUTI NAYAK VS. BASANATA MANJARI NAYAK [LAWS(ORI)-2014-9-80] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)An election for the post of Sarpanch and Panches of the Gram Panchayat, Village Ranish Khurd, District Moga was held on 29.6.2003. Total votes polled in both the elections were shown to be 836. The Returning Officer found that both Appellant and Respondent No. 1 had polled 412 votes each. Respondent No. 2 herein is said to have got 4 votes. 8 votes were rejected. Allegedly, a recounting was done. The result of recounting was same as that of the first one. Returning Officer recorded the said statement in the statutory Form No. IX prescribed in terms of Rule 33(2)(e) of the Punjab Panchayati Election Rules, 1994. The total number of votes polled was found to be 836 even in the election of the Panches. Indisputably, election was held under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The State of Punjab in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the said Act, framed rules known as Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (for short, the Rules). The relevant provisions of the Rules are as under:
33. Counting of Votes - (1) In a Sabha area where there is only one polling station, the Returning Officer shall follow the following procedure for the counting of votes and declaration of result for election to the Gram Panchayat.

(2) The Presiding Officer shall, as soon as practicable, after the close of the poll and in the presence of any candidate or polling agent who may be present:

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) ...

(e) After the counting of ballot papers contained in all the ballot boxes has been completed, the Returning Officer shall record a statement in Form IX showing the total number of votes poled by each candidate.

35. Procedure in case of tie - If, after the counting of votes is completed, votes polled by two candidates are equal, and the addition of one vote will entitle any of these candidates to be declared elected. The Returning Officer shall forthwith decide between those candidates by draw of lots as the candidate in whose favour the lot falls has received an additional vote.

38. Election Papers to be forwarded to the District Election Officer - The Returning Officer shall put the election papers in separate packages on the outside of which shall be endorsed a description of their contents, and after sealing them in separate packets, forward to the District Election Officer:

a) the ballot-papers counted as valid;

b) the ballot-papers rejected as invalid;

c) the unissued ballot-papers;

d) the issued tendered ballot-papers;

e) the spoilt ballot-papers;

f) the cancelled/returned ballot-papers;

g) the tendered votes list;

h) the list of challenged votes;

i) account of ballot-papers; and

j) the marked copy of electoral roll.

(3.)The Returning Officer drew lots with written consent of both the candidates, i.e., Appellant and Respondent No. 1. Appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. However, immediately prior thereto, the supporters of 1st Respondent allegedly raised a hue and cry, as a result whereof, the Returning Officer could not enforce his decision. He immediately sent a fax message to the Deputy Commissioner, Moga seeking his advice in the matter stating:
Regarding Panchayat Elections, for the Panchayat Election of Village Ran Singh Kurd I was appointed R.O.I. for Nihal Singh Wala on 29.6.2003. Election was held and after counting the votes for Sarpanch, Sh. Shinder Pal & Sh. Baldev Singh received equal 412-412 votes. As both candidates received equal number of votes, therefore, as per instructions result for Sarpanch was to be declared by draw of lots. Both the candidates were called and draw was conducted before them and one slip was drawn through another Returning Officer. As the slip in the name of Sh. Baldev Singh came out but another candidate Sh. Shinder Pal Singh refused to accept the decision and written paper was torn. Now this office does not have consent paper of both candidates given for draw of lots. It is requested to you to inform what action should be taken in this matter.

The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the said fax message to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moga for necessary action, who, in turn informed him that the decision taken should be enforced. An endorsement to that effect was also made by him. The result of the election was thereafter declared.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.