Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Notice of motion. Mr. Amit Rana, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The question posed in the present revision petition is as to whether election petition filed under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "1994 Act") or any of its provisions challenging the election petition of the returned candidate has to be filed by the effected petitioner-in-person along with advocate or not
(2.) In order to answer the aforementioned question, it would be apt to reproduce the provisions of Section 176 of 1994 Act which read thus:- "176. Determination of validity of election enquiry by Judge and procedure (1) If the validity of any election of a member of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, President or Vice-President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad respectively is brought in question by any person contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question relates, such person may at any time within thirty days after the date of the declaration of results of the election , present an election petition to the civil court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held, for the determination of such question. (2) A petitioner shall not join as respondent to his election petition except the following persons:- (a) where the petitioner in addition to challenging the validity of the election of all or any of the returned candidates claims a further relief that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner and where no such further relief is claimed, all the returned candidates; (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practices are made in the election petition. (3) All election petitions received under sub-section (1) in which the validity of the election of members to represent the same electoral division is in question, shall be heard by the same civil court. (4) (a) If on the holding such inquiry the civil court finds that a candidate has, for the purpose of election committed a corrupt practise within the meaning of sub-section (5) he shall set aside the election and declare the candidate disqualified for the purpose of election and fresh election may be held. [(aa) If on holding such enquiry the Civil Court finds that- (i) on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified to be elected; (ii) any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (iii) the result of the election, in so far it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination or by any corrupt practise committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any noncompliance with or violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India or of this Act, or any rules or orders made under this Act, election of such returned candidate shall be set aside and fresh election may be held.;] (b) If, in any case to which clause (a) or clause (aa) does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the court shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the largest number of valid votes in his favour, to have been duty elected: Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes is found to exist between any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidate to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in the favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be, elected by lot drawn in the presence of the judge in such manner as he may determine. (5) A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practise- (a) who with a view to induce a voter to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, offers or gives any money or valuable consideration, or holds out any promise of individual profit, or holds out any threat of injury to any person ; or (b) who, with a view to induce any person to stand or not to stand or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, offers or gives any money or valuable consideration or holds out any promise or individual profit or holds out any threat of injury to any person ; or (c) who hires or procures whether on payment or otherwise, any vehicle or vessel for the conveyance of any voter (other than the person himself, the members of his family or his agent) to and from any polling station."
(3.) For the purpose of adjudication of the question aforementioned by conjunctively reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the succinct facts of the case are that the respondents filed an election petition in respect of the election held on 24.01.2016 for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Sukhmanpur, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. The election petition has been filed by invoking the provisions of Section 176 4(b) of 1994 Act, whereby, the respondents had sought re-counting of the votes. The aforementioned election petition was objected to by the petitioner on the premise that the same was not filed by the defeated candidate in person but by his advocate.;