http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURINDER KAUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1507            1996 SCC  (3) 210  JT 1996 (3)   554        1996 SCALE  (3)102

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard the counsel.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the Order of the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court dated September 13, 1993 made in  Writ Petition No.836/93. The appellant, admittedly, was a  sarpanch for  15 years  of the Gram Panchayat village Dialgarh, District  Gurdaspur. It  is her case that the poll to the office of Sarpanch was to be held on January 18, 1993 and nomination  paper was  to be  filed by January 17, 1993. She had obtained all the no objection certificates and other certificates on  January 15,  1993. On  January 17, 1993 she went at 12 noon to submit her nomination papers. Her husband was wrongfully  detained by  the police. It is her case that the 7th  respondent, Tara  Singh had  forcibly snatched  the nomination papers  and  torn  them  off.  In  spite  of  her complaint to  the police,  they did  not pay any heed to her protest nor  acted on  her complaint.  Consequently, she was constrained to  complain at  about 4.30  p.m.  to  the  Sub- Divisional Magistrate  present in  the gypsy  vehicle. There was an  entry in  the log book in that behalf. But no action had come  through. Since  the election  was to take place on January 18,  1993, she  had approached  the High  Court  and filed the  writ petition.  Admittedly, stay was granted at 2 p.m. and  it was  communicated telegraphically  at 3 p.m. on the same  day.  It  is  also  seen  that  the  advocate  had communicated the  same and  it was received at 3.50 p.m. The poll was  closed at 4.00 p.m. It would thus be seen that the poll was closed after the stay was granted by the High Court and having had the knowledge of the stay granted by the High Court at 3.00 p.m., the Returning Officer should have stayed his hands  back and  awaited the decision of the High Court. Unfortunately, instead of awaiting the decision, he had gone in post  haste in  declaring the 7th respondent to have been duly elected as a Sarpanch.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Though it  is denied  that the  appellant had submitted her nomination papers for contest as a Sarpanch, it would be difficult to  believe the  statement of the respondents that she had  not filed  the nomination papers. She had taken all necessary steps  to file  the nomination  papers well within time. She  had already  been a  sitting Sarpanch for over 15 years. Under  those circumstances,  one  would  legitimately expect that  she  have  had  an  intention  to  contest  the election and  having secured  necessary  papers,  in  normal course she  would have  filed the  nomination papers but for some  supervening  event.  It  is  her  case  that  the  7th respondent had forcibly taken the nomination papers from her and torn them off since her husband was already under police custody at the relevant time. She was incapable of resisting the high handed action. It is obvious that she was prevented from   filing    the   nomination    papers.   Under   those circumstances,  she   was  constrained   to   approach   the authorities. But  when she  did not get any tangible result, she had  gone to  the High Court and filed the writ petition making   all    the   allegations   therein.   Under   these circumstances, we  are  of  the  considered  view  that  the conduct of  the election  in the circumstances was not valid in law.      Though the  learned counsel  for the appellant seeks to rely upon  Rule 14-A-  of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, we  do not  think that  the facts of the case fall in any of the grounds enumerated in that rule. She can not file an election  petition equally. However, in view of the facts stated above,  it being a case of unlawful prevention of the appellant from  contesting the election, the election to the office of  Sarpanch held is clearly in violation of the law. Therefore, the election of the 7th respondent as Sarpanch is set aside.  He may,  however, continue  till the  re-poll is held. The  authorities are  directed to conduct the election according to  the rules  within four  weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.      The appeal  is allowed.  Writ is issued accordingly. No costs.