Santpal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (Dc) Sangrur And ORS.

CM-20639-CII-2015 in/and FAO No. 6637-2015 Anuradha 2018.01.25 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CM-20639-CII-2015 in/and FAO No. 6637-2015 Date of Decision : 19.1.2018 SANTPAL SINGH ....APPELLANT VS PRESIDING OFFICER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL (DC) SANGRUR AND ORS.

....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:

Mr. Ranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

**** AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) CM-20639-CII-2015 This is an application for condonation of 194 days delay in filing the appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 194 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Sangrur dismissing the petition filed by the appellant against the respondent No.2-Harpal Singh. The election for the post of the Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Kapial, Tehsil and District Sangrur were held on 3.7.2013 The allegation of the appellant was that local SHO was interfering in the election process on behalf of respondent No.

CM-20639-CII-2015 in/and FAO No. 6637-2015 Anuradha 2018.01.25 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2. He came to the venue during the date and forced the voters to vote in favour of the respondent No.2 and thereafter even the counting was rigged in such a manner as to ensure respondent No.2 was to be declared a winner. The Tribunal also noticed that in his cross-examination the appellant had accepted that he had not submitted any written complaint on the spot and after counting was over he went home at 9:00 pm. As regards the allegation that the SHO was interfering, the Tribunal has noticed that it was the election staff who had called the police because of the law and order situation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the counsel for the appellant was not able to prove the allegation. Counsel has not been able to show me which part of the evidence has not been considered or which evidence has been considered illegally or arbitrarily. The appeal stands dismissed.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M, if any, also stand disposed of.

19.1.2018 (AJAY TEWARI) anuradha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No