FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 1

347IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 01.12.2025

RANJIT SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

ELECTION TRIBUNAL-CUM-SUB DIVISIONAL

MAGISTRATE, MALOUT AND OTHERS ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajinder Singh Bhatta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for respondent No.3.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM No.24105-CII of 2025

Instant application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for

placing on record affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Brar, PCS, Sub Divisional

Magistrate Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

Affidavit of respondent No.3 is taken on record.

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M)

On 26

th

of September, 2025 following order was passed :

“The present appeal has been preferred alleging that the

recounting has been ordered yesterday without even providing the

copy thereof. The recounting is in process. It has been alleged that

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 2

copy of the order has not been supplied despite having been

applied for vide Annexure A-10.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab appears and

accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. He admits the

factum of recounting being in process, however, is not able to

show the order passed by the Tribunal. He prays for time to

produce the same even though State was informed of the matter at

01.00 PM and the present matter has been taken now at 02.00 PM.

Adjourned to 03.11.2025.

Till further orders the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal,

Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib is directed to stop the

recounting forthwith.

Copy of the order be conveyed to the Presiding Officer,

Election Tribunal, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib through Mr.

Maninder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Copy of the order be handed over to the counsel for the

parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary.”

2. Affidavit of Jaspal Singh Brar, PCS, Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Gidderbaha District Sri Muktsar Sahib, dated 29.11.2025 has been filed.

3. The presiding officer has tried to take refuge under the orders

passed by the Revisional Court, to contend that the precise argument qua

non-framing of issues was raised before the Revisional Court but the same

did not find favour with the Court and thus, no fault can be found with the

orders passed by him.

4. Counsel representing private respondent has also relied upon

the same order. He has gone a step further to contend that the proper course

available with the appellant was to approach the Supreme Court by

impugning the orders. He contends that despite having been granted

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 3

opportunities to the appellant, he failed to lead any evidence and thus no

fault can be found with the orders passed by the Tribunal. He further

submits that no application was moved by the appellant before the Tribunal

for framing of issues and that false allegations have been levelled against the

respondents that they were hobnobbing with the politicians.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone

through records of the case.

6. Section 15 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provides for

an election to constitute Gram Panchayat. Section 210 of the 1994 Act

provides that the State Election Commission shall conduct the Panchayat

elections. Punjab Government exercising power under the Punjab

Panchayati Raj Act framed and notified the Punjab Panchayat Election

Rules, 1994. Rule 50 provides for election petition to be filed under Section

76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Section 78 of

Election Commission Act, 1994 deals with contents of petition. Section 80

deals with trial of election petitions. Sections 76, 78, 80 and 81 read as

under:

“76. Presentation of petition.— (I) An election petition

may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-

section (1) of section 89 to the Election Tribunal by any candidate

to such election or by any elector within a period of forty five days

from the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are

more than one returned candidates at the election and there are

different cafes of their elecUor., then the later of these dates shall

be taken into account for this purpose.

(2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as

many copies thereof, as there are respondents mentioned In the

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 4

petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner

under his own signatures to be a true copy of the petition.

78. Contents of petition.-- (1) As election petition shall,—

(a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on

which the petitioner relies

(b) set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the

petitioner alleges including a statement as possible, of the names of

the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice or

practices and the date and place of the commission of such

practice; and

(c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner

laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, (Central Act 5 of

1908) for the verification of pleadings:

Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt

practice, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit in the

prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt

practice and the relevant particulars thereof.

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be

signed by the petitioner 2ed verified in the same manner as the

petition.

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 5

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 6

7. In view of above, the Tribunal is obligated to follow procedure

laid down in Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

8. Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994

is pari materia to Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

8.1. While dealing with the import of Section 81, Supreme Court in

the case of G.V. Sreerama Reddy & another vs. Returning Officer &

others, (2009) 8 SCC 736, observed as under:

11. Sub-section (1) has five components, (i) the qualification of

the petitioner, i.e. he/she must be either "a candidate at such

election" or an "elector"; (ii) the petition must be presented 'by' the

petitioner; (iii) the petition must be based "on one or more of the

grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section

101; (iv) it must be presented in the High Court; and (v) it must be

presented within 45 days from, but not earlier than the date of

election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one

returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are

different, the later of those two dates.

12. Therefore, all these five requirements are extremely specific

and clear. This inference is further strengthened by Section 86(1)

which provides that the "High Court shall dismiss an election

petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81".

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 7

13. This Court, on previous occasions, had the chance to

interpret Section 81(1). It must be noted that the Representation of

the People Act is a special statute, and a self-contained regime. In

K. Venkateswara Rao and Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and

Ors., (1969)1 SCR 679, a question arose whether 45 days period

provided under Section 81(1) could be condoned through the

application of the Limitation Act ? After examining the relevant

provisions of the Act, this Court held :

"...the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election

petition inasmuch as the Representation of the People Act is a complete

and selfcontained code which does not admit of the introduction of the

principles or the provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation

Act."

14. This has been reiterated in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v.

Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133, wherein this Court has

again read the requirements under Section 81 strictly, while stating

that the Act is a self-contained special statute.

15. While interpreting a special statute, which is a self-

contained code, the Court must consider the intention of the

Legislature. The reason for this fidelity towards the Legislative

intent is that the statute has been enacted with a specific purpose

which must be measured from the wording of the statute strictly

construed. The preamble of the Representation of the People Act

makes it clear that for the conduct of elections of the Houses of

Parliament or the Legislature of each State, the qualification and

dis-qualification for membership of those Houses, the corrupt

practice and other offences in connection with such allegations the

Act was enacted by the Parliament. In spite of existence of

adequate provisions in the Civil Procedure Code relating to

institution of a suit, the present Act contains elaborate provisions

as to disputes regarding elections. It not only prescribes how

election petitions are to be presented but it also mandates what are

the materials to be accompanied with the election petition, details

regarding parties, contents of the same, relief that may be claimed

in the petition. How trial of election petitions are to be conducted

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 8

has been specifically provided in Chapter III of Part VI. In such

circumstances, we are of the view that the provisions have to be

interpreted as mentioned by the Legislature.

16. One can discern the reason why the petition is required to

be presented by the petitioner personally. An election petition is a

serious matter with a variety of consequences. Since such a

petition may lead to the vitiation of a democratic process, any

procedure provided by an election statute must be read strictly.

Therefore, the Legislature has provided that the petition must be

presented "by" the petitioner himself, so that at the time of

presentation, the High Court may make preliminary verification

which ensure that the petition is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

17. In this context, earlier decisions of this Court regarding the

interpretation of Section 81(1) must be understood. In Sheo Sadan

Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam, 1969(1) SCC 408, in paragraph 4,

this court held that :

"The High Court has found as a fact that the election

petition was presented to the registry by an advocate's clerk

in the immediate presence of the petitioner. Therefore, in

substance though not in form, it was presented by the

petitioner himself. Hence the requirement of the law was

fully satisfied."

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the

"form" of the provision was not followed, i.e. the petition was not

presented "by" the petitioner "personally", in "substance", it was

followed. It is to be noted that in Sadan Singh's case, it is not in

dispute that the petition was presented to the Registry in the

immediate presence of the petitioner. In other words, the officer

authorised by the High Court had an opportunity to verify him but

in the case on hand, admittedly, it was presented only by the

advocate and the petitioners were not present before the Registrar

(Judicial). In view of the same, the said decision is not helpful to

the appellant's case. This is because the petitioner therein had, in

substance, complied with the provision as strictly construed.

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 9

18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on a

decision of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in

Bhanwar Singh v. Navrang Singh, AIR 1987 Rajasthan 63. In

the case before the learned Single Judge, the election petition had

been presented by one Rajendra Prasad, Advocate and not by the

petitioner himself. It was argued by learned counsel for the

petitioner therein that election petition had been validly presented

under Section 81 (1) of the Act because Section 81 (1) of the Act

only makes a provision as to who can file an election petition and

does not deal with as to who should actually present it before the

Registry. It is further submitted that Section 81 of the Act nowhere

provides that the petitioner should be physically present at the time

of presentation of the election petition. The learned Single Judge,

after adverting to the words - "by", "presented" concluded that

these words used in Section 81(1) of the Act have to be given wide

meaning and found that election petition filed through an advocate

without the presence of candidate or elector is valid. We are unable

to accept the said conclusion.

19. We have already pointed out that in spite of provisions in

Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act relating to institution of

suit and recording of evidence etc. this Act provides all the details

starting from the presentation of the election petition ending with

the decision of the High Court. In such circumstances, it is but

proper to interpret the language used by the Legislature and

implement the same accordingly. The challenge to an election is a

serious matter. The object of presenting an election petition by a

candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to curtail

vexatious litigations. If we consider sub-section (1) along with the

other provisions in Chapter II and III, the object and intent of the

Legislature is that this provision i.e. Section 81(1) is to be strictly

adhered to and complied with.

8.2. While interpreting Section 76 of the Punjab State Election

Commission Act, the same was relied upon by this Court in the case of

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 10

Gurmail Kaur, Sarpanch vs. Presiding Officer and others, 2015(8)

R.C.R. (Civil) 2012 1994, to observe as under:

3. The manner of whether presentation of the petitions through

counsel was competent was considered by this court by a learned

single Judge making particular reference to the judgment of the

Supreme Court as well in this regard. In Gurlal Singh v.

Presiding Of icer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District

Sangrur and others-2010(5) RCR (Civil) 474, the court raised

the point for consideration as, "Whether an election petition

presented through an Advocate is liable to be dismissed under

Section 80 of the Act, being in violation of Section 76(1) of the

Act?" The court held after making reference to the judgment of the

Supreme Court that the petition was not competent and there was

no question of any waiver in the election petition of a mandatory

and peremptory provision of law which has a consequence of

dismissal of the election petition in case of violation. The Supreme

Court's judgment referred to in the decision in Gurlal Singh(supra)

is G.V. Sreerama Reddy and another v. Returning Of icer and

others-2009(8) SCC 736. That was a case relating to an objection

taken on the validity of the election petition presented through

counsel. We have already extracted the provisions of the

Representation of Peoples Act that makes reference to presentation

of the election petition. The Supreme Court was raising a question

as to why the petition is required to be presented by the petitioner

personally in para 16 and the court reasoned as follows:-

"16. ..... An election petition is a serious matter with a variety of

consequences. Since such a petition may lead to the vitiation of a

democratic process, any procedure provided by an election statute must

be read strictly. Therefore, the Legislature has provided that the petition

must be presented by the petitioner himself, so that at the time of

presentation, the High Court may make preliminary verification which

ensure that the petition is neither frivolous nor vexatious."

It can be seen that the Supreme Court was, therefore, considering

that the election petition is always serious and if a result of a

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 11

democratic process is sought to be scuttled, it has to be under an

exceptional circumstance and there must be a punctilious

observation of the statutory mandate. The Supreme Court held that

the petition presented through advocate was not competent.

8.3. Underlining the importance of the procedure to be followed in

election petition and the effect of the result of the election petition, Supreme

Court in the case of ‘Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia’, (2001) 2

SCC 652 observed as under:

“19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing

the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of

the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall

proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date

fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing.

The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of

conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the Court

reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues the

disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil

lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly

determining the real points in controversy which need to be

decided. The scheme of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure

dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a

material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and

denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one

party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct

issue. An obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition

and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with

the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material

propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance.

The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of

the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to

assist the Court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the

counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the Court.

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 12

It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame

sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues

may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to

prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The

petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the

parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact

and the Court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties

are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition

shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence

on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the

pleadings. No evidence on controversies, not covered by issues and

the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads

evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on

him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and

arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may

be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding

issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was

decided.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

26. An election petition is not a dispute between the petitioner

and respondent merely, the fate of the constituency is on trial. xx”

(emphasis supplied)

9. Applying the aforesaid parameters to the present case, it is

evident that neither the election petition was presented by the petitioner as

per law nor the Tribunal botherd to frame issues. The same is evident from

the order dated 11.11.2024 which reads as under:

Sukhpal Singh V/s Ranjit Singh etc., Village Burj sidhwan

(Election Petition, Sarpanch)

Dated: 11.11.2024

Today, this election petition of Sh. Sukhpal Singh

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 13

son of Chanchal Singh, resident of Village Burj Sidhwan, Tehsil

Malout has been presented before this Court by Sh. Malkit Singh

Mann, Advocate. It should be registered. Case file should be

presented on 04.12.2024 for consideration on file.

Sd/-

Election Tribunal

Malout.

10. At the time of arguments, counsel for the respondents have tried

to take refuge under order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court in CR

No.4350 of 2025. The said order does not advance the cause of the

respondents in any manner. The revision petition also was based upon high-

headedness of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, who ordered recounting

of votes even prior cross-examination of the witnesses. Operative part of

order passed by this Court in CR No.4350 of 2025, reads as under:

11. On perusal of above noted gist of zimini orders which are

not in dispute, it is clearly made out that cross-examination of

witnesses have not been closed and impugned order was passed.

12. In these circumstances, I feel it appropriate to remand the

case back to Election Tribunal by quashing the impugned order as

evidence in support of his election petition without cross-

examination of witnesses of applicant/respondent is not complete.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is set aside. The

matter is remanded back to Election Tribunal. The Election

Tribunal shall give one opportunity to petitioner/respondent No.1

to cross-examine the witnesses. After cross-examination of

witnesses the application for recounting has to be heard on merits

and thereafter, on consideration of pleadings and evidence of

petitioner in support of his allegations made in election petition

only for the purpose of recounting, Election Tribunal shall

appreciate the facts to conclude prima facie case as well as

material facts stated about the irregularities in counting of votes

and regarding satisfaction that no roving and fishing inquiry is

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 14

being made. The order of recounting, if ordered, shall also keep

secrecy of ballot papers intact. Since present is an election petition,

it would be in the interest of both the parties that entire exercise by

Tribunal i.e. allowing petitioner/respondent No.1 to conduct cross-

examination and to argue the matter as per material available on

the plea of recounting is concluded on day to day basis within next

10 days.

13. Parties are directed to appear on 15.09.2025, before the

Election Tribunal. It will be the duty of petitioner to bring his

witnesses for crossexamination. Cross-examination shall be

conducted on the same day, without any further adjournment.

Thereafter, Tribunal shall hear arguments and conclude whether

any case for recounting is made out from the allegations raised by

petitioner in accordance with the parameters noted above.

11. Bare perusal of the order would reveal that the Court directed to

conclude hearing within 10 days from the passing of the order and never

intended that the re-count should be necessarily ordered, and thereafter, the

right to appeal of the aggrieved party be scuttled. The order was passed by

the Tribunal for re-count of votes on 25.09.2025 and the re-count was

ordered to be held on 26.09.2025 without realizing that the statute provides

for 30 days to the aggrieved party to prefer statutory appeal.

12. Even the order dated 25.09.2025 which has been placed on

record by respondent No.3, shows that no satisfaction has been recorded by

the Tribunal. As per settled law, the Election Tribunal was bound to record

satisfaction regarding the following parameters:

(i)Prima facie case;

(ii) Material facts pleaded stating irregularities in counting of

FAO-5753-2025 (O&M) 15

votes; and

(iii) that a roving and fishing inquiry is not directed by way of

order of re-count of votes.

13. There is nothing on record to suggest that the order was not

passed as a measure of roving inquiry.

14. In view of above, this Court finds that the entire procedure

followed by the Tribunal smells of bias much less illegality. Accordingly,

the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is held to be unsustainable in the

eyes of law and the same is ordered to be quashed.

15. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2025.

16. The Election Tribunal shall frame proper issues based upon the

pleadings of the parties. Both the parties shall be granted three effective

opportunities to lead their entire evidence.

17. Based thereupon, the Tribunal shall decide and adjudicate upon

the rights of the parties, in accordance with law.

18. The entire exercise be conducted and carried out before 30

th

of

August, 2026. The Presiding Officer is advised to be more careful in

following the law while donning the hat of arbitrator/adjudicator.

19. The instant appeal is disposed off accordingly.

20. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

December 01, 2025 (Pankaj Jain)

Dpr Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No