GURSEWAK SINGH versus AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURSEW AK SINGH 
v. 
A VT AR SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Jurisdiction of High Court-
Scope of interference with order of Election Tribunal-Held: High Court to 
examine the case closely and assign sufficient and cogent reasons while 
C interfering with the order of Tribunal. 
In the election held on 29.6.2003 for the post of Sarpanch, appellant 
and first respondent were only contestants. Polling was held in four booths 
being numbers 41, 42, 43 ancl 44. Appellant was declared elected Sarpanch. 
D Aggrieved first respondent filed election petition wherein he prayed for the 
recounting of votes. 
Recounting of votes was directed on 4.f\2004, where against appellant 
filed writ petition. High Court summoned the original ballot papers. Upon 
inspection, High Court found that there were no separate envelopes to indicate 
E rejected votes, wrongly counted votes and votes in favour of each of the 
candidate to the election and that everything was in mess. On 2.9.2004, High 
Court dismissed the writ petition holding that votes were not being kept in 
segregated manner in proper bundles and the respondent had made a prima 
facie case for recounting of votes. 
f 
On 16.9.2004, an application was filed before the tribunal making 
allegations against the First Respondent, R.O. and Chowkidar contending that 
they were responsible for tampering with the records. On 12.10.2004, tribunal 
dismissed the application finding that no charge were proved. On appeal, High 
Court set aside the order of tribunal. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for fresh 
H 
consideration, the Court 
HELD: I. 4063 ballot papers were issued for holding the election but 
only 4051 votes were found to have been polled and 12 ballot papers were 
916 
GURSEW AK SINGH v.A VT AR SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
917 
missing. Upon recounting 1641 votes were found to be in favour of the A 
. Appellant, 968 votes in favour of the First Respondent and 427 votes were 
found invalid. In relation to booth No. 41, 200 more ballot papers were found 
whereas in respect of booth No. 43, about 200 less were found. How and in 
what manner, the ballot papers of the two booths got mixed up is not known. 
Who is responsible therefor is also not known. What evidence was adduced 
in support of the respective contentions is also not known. [922-B; 923-E-F) B 
2. Election Tribunal had held that there had been no allegation of corrupt 
practices against the appellant. There was no pleading as such in this behalf 
in the election petition. High Court did not go into the correctness of the 
findings of the Tribunal at all. It was essential to go into the said question C 
and arrive at a positive finding on analyzing the evidence on record. 
[924-H, CJ 
Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors., [2004) 6 SCC 331; 
M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors., [2004) 6 SCC 341; Hoshila 
Tiwari v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2005] 12 SCC 342 and Tanaji Ramchandra D 
Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimhan and Ors., (2006) 2 SCALE 81, referred to. 
3. While interfering with an order of the Election Tribunal, particularly, . 
in view of the purport and object for which such Tribunals had been constituted, 
High Court had an obligation to assign sufficient and cogent reasons. High 
Court proceeded on the basis that the Appellant was responsible for the mess E 
created in the matter of maintenance of records. High Court ought to have 
examined the case more closely. (925-C, H; 926-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1912 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.2005 of the High Court of F 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 5311/2004. 
Vijay Jhanji, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya Kr. Chaudhary, Bharat Singh, 
Sanjay Singh, Vikrant Hooda and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Appellant. 
J.L. Gupta, Nidesh Gupta, Nidhi Gupta, Vinod Shukla and S. Janani for· G 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
Gram Panchayat Ralla is situated in the District of Mansa in the State H 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A of Punjab. Election to the post of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was 
held on 29.6.2003. The Appellant and the First Respondent herein were the 
only two contestants, polling wherefor was held in four booths being Nos. 
41, 42, 43 and 44. The Appellant was declared elec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.