JUDGEMENT
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J. -
(1.) Through the instant writ petition filed under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed
for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 20.5.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.10 vide which his
election petition dated 24.2.2016 (Annexure P-2) was dismissed on the
ground of limitation despite the filing of separate application dated
24.2.2016 (Annexure P-3) for condonation of delay. Further, a prayer has been made for quashing the result dated 10.1.2016 (Annexure P-8) of Ward
No.5 for the post of Panch of village Dongra declaring respondent No.9 as
winning Panch. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the
official respondents to recount the votes of Ward No.5, Gram Panchayat,
Dongra Ahir, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh for which application
dated 29.4.2016 (Annexure P-4) was filed before respondent No.10. Also a
prayer has been made directing the official respondents to declare the
petitioner as elected Panch of Gram Panchayat, Dongra Ahir, Tehsil
Kanina, District Mahendergarh as he was declared elected Panch of Ward
No.5 but oath letter was issued in the name of respondent No.9 by the
polling officers after recording the votes vice versa in the result
(Annexure P-8).
(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudicating of the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The election of Gram Panchayat Dongra
Ahir, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh was held on 10.1.2016 for
various posts. The petitioner and respondent No.9 contested for the post
of Panch of Ward No.5. After voting, the counting was done on 10.1.2016
in the evening in which total 200 votes were polled out of which 30 votes
were cancelled. Out of 170 votes, the petitioner had secured 92 votes
whereas respondent No. 9 secured 78 votes and the petitioner was declared
winning candidate of Ward No.5. However, no certificate was given in the
evening on 10.1.2016. The oath ceremony of the Panches and Sarpanches
were to be held on 16.2.2016. On 12.2.2016, Panchayat Secretary came in
the village and informed respondent No.9 for participating in the oath
ceremony to be held on 16.2.2016. The petitioner made enquiries and came
to know that the Presiding Officer had wrongly recorded the secured votes
of the petitioner and respondent No.9 vice versa. Accordingly, he made a
representation dated 15.2.2016 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.2 for
preparing the correct result and declaring him the winning candidate.
When no action was taken by the official respondents, the petitioner
filed an election petition dated 25.2.2016 (Annexure P-2) before
respondent No.2. He also filed an application for condonation of delay on
25.2.2016 (Annexure P-3). An application dated 29.4.2016 (Annexure P-4) was also filed by the petitioner for recounting of the votes. In
pursuance to the application, Annexure P-4, respondent No.9 made a
statement dated 6.5.2016 that he had no objection for recounting of the
votes and vide order dated 6.5.2016 (Annexure P-7), the case was
adjourned to 11.5.2016 for consideration of the application for
recounting of votes. Respondent No.9 was declared elected vide result
dated 10.1.2016 (Annexure P-8). Respondent No.10 vide impugned order
dated 20.5.2016 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the election petition being
barred by limitation. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election petition was maintainable as the same was filed within a period of 30
days from the date of knowledge of the petitioner. It was further
submitted that respondent No.10 had wrongly dismissed the election
petition being barred by limitation.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.