HARNEK SINGH versus CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARNEK SINGH 
A 
v. 
CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
(ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Election Laws: 
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act-Punjab Panchayat Election Rules-Rules 
31 and 45(1)-Punjab State Election Commission Act-Section 89- C 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226-Election-For the Post a/Chairman, 
Gram Panchayat-Date of re-polling-Fixed by Returning Officer-
Challenged as having been fvced without authority-Writ Petition challenging 
the election allowed-Jn appeal maintainability of writ petition against election 
questioned-Held: High Court should not have exercised its writ jurisdiction D 
against elecpon dispute-J~risdiction under Article 226 being discretionary 
in nature, such discretion could not have been exercised in the facts of the 
present case-Petition not maintainable in view of provision under Election 
Commission Act as the same provides for a complete remedy. 
For election to the post of Chairman, Gram Panchayat, Deputy E 
Commissioner, having been authorized to chalk out the election 
programme, appointed Returning Officer. Meeting was called for holding 
election. Both the contestants secured equal number of votes. But due to 
law and order situation, the election process was adjourned by the 
Returning Officer. On the adjourned date of poll respondent took part in F 
the proceedings, but refused to sign the proceeding book. Respondent 
questioned the authority of the· Returning Officer for holding re-election 
on the ground that the power to fix a fresh date and time of poll vests 
only with Election Commission in view of Rule 31 of Punjab Panchayat 
Election Rules. Deputy Commissioner refused to refer the matter to the 
Election Commission, holding that in view of Rule 45(1) officer appointed 
under Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is empowered to adjourn the 
meeting and fix time and place of polling. Respondent filed Writ Petition 
and High Court allowing the petition, set aside the election of the 
petitioner. 
223 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the petition was 
not maintainable since the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not have entertained the 
election dispute; that Returning Officer had only fixed a meeting and not 
an election; and that recourse to filing of election petition u/s.89 of Punjab 
B State Election Commission Act, either could not have been resorted to as 
therein jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner could not have been resorted 
to. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The prayers in Writ Petition seeking issue of writs 
C quashing the action of rejection of vote and declaring the petitioner as 
elected on the basis of the votes cast, evidently, could not have been granted 
in favour of the petitioner by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction 
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the High 
Court exercises a plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
D Constitution. Such jurisdiction being discretionary in nature may not be 
exercised inter alia keeping in view the that an effillacious alternative 
remedy is available therefor. The present case was not a fit case in which 
the High Court should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction. 
(22'!-C, DJ 
E 
C. Subramanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu and Ors., 119981 8 SCC 703 
F 
and Jaspal Singh Arora v. State of M.P. and Ors., 119981 9 SCC 594, relied 
on. 
Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 
SCALE 290, referred to. 
2. It is not correct to say that only a meeting was fixed. The meeting 
was fixed for holding election. The parties hereto took part in the election 
process. It is therefore, clear that on the adjourned date, only lot was to 
be drawn and, thus, the election process which was started could not be 
G completed owing to commotion created by the Respondent group, was to 
be completed. Furthermore, it was not even a case where the Respondent 
was not aware of the postponed date. It is not in dispute that the 
Respondent was present on the adjourned date of poll but refused to sign 
the proceeding book. The Respondent, however, contested the said 
statement contending that the same had been done with a ma/a fide motive. 
H 
1231-D, EJ 
HARNEK SINGH v. CHARANJIT SINGH [SINHA, J.] 
225 
3. Jn view of Section 80(l)(d)(iv) of Punjab State Election A 
Commission Act, 1994 which is in pari materia w

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