Supreme Court of India

SURINDER KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 308
Decided: 23 February 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The election of the 7th respondent as Sarpanch is set aside as it was conducted in violation of law, and a repoll must be held within four weeks.

Summary

Surinder Kaur, who had served as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dialgarph for 15 years, attempted to file her nomination papers for the Sarpanch election scheduled on 18 January 1993. On 17 January, her husband was detained by police and the 7th respondent, Tara Singh, forcibly seized and destroyed her nomination papers. Despite her complaints, the police took no action, and the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate also failed to intervene. She filed a writ petition; the High Court granted a stay at 2 pm, communicated at 3 pm, but the Returning Officer ignored the stay and declared Tara Singh elected at 4 pm. The Supreme Court held that the election was conducted in violation of law because the appellant was unlawfully prevented from filing her nomination and the stay order was disregarded. Consequently, the election of the 7th respondent was set aside, though he may continue in office until a repoll is held within four weeks. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the election to the office of Sarpanch held on 18 January 1993 is valid when the appellant was unlawfully prevented from filing her nomination papers.
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in proceeding with the poll despite a stay order issued by the High Court.
Whether Rule 14A of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules applies to set aside the election.

Subjects

election lawgram panchayatnomination papersstay orderelection validityrepollunlawful preventionreturning officerPunjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules

Judgment

A                                SURINDER KAUR
                                         v.
                         STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                 FEBRUARY 23, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

            Election Laws:

            Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules :

C       Rule 14A-Election to the office of Smpanch--One person prevented
  from filing her nomination papers by one of the candidates--Despite com-
  plaint no action taken by Police-Wlit petition filed and High Cowt granting
  stay-Even after communicating the stay Retwning Officer proqeeding with
  the election and declaiing the results--Held: The election not valid in law as
D one of the prospective candidates, who was Smpanch for 15 years was
  unlawfully prevented from filing her nomination papers-Election of retumed
  candidates set aside-However he may continue till the repoll which the
  auth01ities should conduct within four weeks.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4393 of
E   1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.93 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 863 of 1993.

            Sudhir Walia and H.A. Raichura for the Appellants.
F
            G.K. Bansal and Satish Vig for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted.
G
            Heard the counsel.

          This appeal by special leave arises from the Order of the Punjab and .
    Haryan;i High Court dated September 13, 1993 made in Writ petition No.
    863/93. the appellant, admittedly, was a sarpanch for 15 years of the Gram
H   Panchayat village Dialgarph, District Gurdaspur. It is her case that the poll
                                        1040
L                         SURINDERKAURv. STATE                             1041

    to the office of Sarpanch was to be held on January 18, 1993 and nomina- A
    tion 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 B
    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 C
    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 D
    knowledge of the stay granted by the High Court at 3.00 p.m., the Return-
    ing 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.                                                       E

           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
                                                                                   F
    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         G
    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 con-
    strained 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      H
    1042                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A all the allegations therein. Under these circumstances, we are of the
                                                                                      l
    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
B   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 contest-
    ing 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
c   Sarpanch is set aside. He may, however, continue till the re-poll is held.
    The authorities are directed to cond~ct the election according to the rules
    within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the this order.

           The appeal is allowed. Writ is issued accordingly, No. costs.

    G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "election law"Sign in to search