T.P.S.MANN,J - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.8.2005 passed by learned Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, challenging the election of Manjit Kaur respondent to the post of Sarpanch, was dismissed.
(2.) IT was stated in the election petition that for the post of Sarpanch of village Annokot Kalan, Dalbir Kaur-appellant and Manjit Kaur-respondent No. 1 filed their nomination papers. Election was held on 29.6.2003. However, the Presiding Officer and the polling party, with the connivance of Manjit Kaur- respondent, did not allow some of the voters to cast their votes. In fact, he was openly proclaiming that he will declare respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch of the village because he belonged to Congress Party, whereas the appellant owed allegiance to Akali Party. The polling agent of the appellant submitted written objections regarding not allowing the voters to cast their votes, but the said objections were destroyed by the Presiding Officer. The result of the election was not declared in the presence of the appellant nor her signatures, or that of her polling agent, obtained on the result-sheet. Accordingly, it was prayed that the election for the post of Sarpanch be declared as illegal and void. Smt. Manjit Kaur, the returned candidate, filed her written statement denying therein that the polling party in connivance with her had committed corrupt practices or that the Presiding Officer did not allow the voters to cast their votes. Rest of the averments made by the election petitioner were also denied and prayer was accordingly made for the dismissal of the petition itself. Learned Election Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the election of respondent No. 1 for the office of Sarpanch is liable to be a set aside on the grounds mentioned in the election petition ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch ? OPP. 3. Relief ?
(3.) THE appellant examined herself as PW1, besides examining Kuldeep Singh as PW2 and Rajinder Singh as PW3. Respondent No. 1 stepped herself into the witness-box as RW1.;