respondopt tN.2sail pptpp

respondent No.2 assailing the election of appellant as Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat, village Dera Gajisalar, Block Samana, District Patiala, was

accepted.

2. Briefly stating, on 27.09.2024, the State Election Commission,

Punjab issued notification for the election of Gram Panchayat in the State of

Punjab. As per the said notification, the following was the schedule:-

“(i)  27.09.2024, the first date for filing nomination;

(ii)  04.10.2024, the last date for filing nomination;

(iii)  05.10.2024, date of scrutiny of nomination;

(iv)  15.10.2024, date for polling of votes;

(v)  15.10.2024, declaration of result.”

3. The dispute in the present case relates to election for the post of

Sarpanch   of   Gram   Panchayat,   Dera   Gajisalar,   Block   Samana,   District

Patiala. The total number of electors in Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar

were 1021, out of which 830 votes were polled. The appellant having scored

474 as against respondent No.2, who scored 356 votes, was declared as

elected Sarpanch.

4. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 filed election petition under

Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter

referred to as “1994 Act”) assailing the validity of appellant having been

declared Sarpanch of Village Dera Gajisalar, District Patiala.

5. The main ground raised in the election petition preferred at the

instance of respondent No.2 was that the name of the appellant did not find

mention in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, Block Samana,

District Patiala and as such, she could not have been permitted to contest the

election. In her written statement filed before the learned Election Tribunal,

respondopt tN.2sail ppnpp

the appellant denied the allegations and asserted that she had furnished

correct and complete particulars in her nomination paper, which was duly

scrutinised   and   accepted   by   the   Returning   Officer.  In   the   course   of

arguments before the learned Election Tribunal, the appellant produced the

electoral roll of Legislative Assembly Constituency 116-Samana, in which

her name was entered at Serial No.1088, and contended that she was on that

basis eligible to contest. After affording opportunities to the parties to lead

their   evidence,   the   learned   Election   Tribunal,   by   its   decision   dated

31.10.2025, accepted the election petition and set aside the election of the

appellant as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, holding that the

appellant, not being an elector of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, was

ineligible to contest for that post.

Being aggrieved, the present appeal came to be filed.

CONTENTIONS

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

6. Impugning the aforementioned decision dated 31.10.2025 passed

by the learned Election Tribunal, Counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant being a valid elector of the legislative assembly covering the area

of Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar was eligible to contest election for the

post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dera Gajisalar.  Learned counsel also

submits that no findings were recorded by the learned Election Tribunal on

the issue of maintainability of the Election Petition preferred at the instance

of respondent No.2. Further, learned counsel submits that in terms of Section

90 of the 1994 Act, upon finding the appellant to be ineligible, rather than

declaring respondent No.2 as elected Sarpanch, fresh election to the post of

Sarpanch was required to be ordered. In support, learned counsel placed

respondopt tN.2sail ppdpp

reliance upon judgment passed by this Court in “Sanjay Kumar vs. Sher Pal

Gujjar and others”, reported as 2018(3) RCR (Civil) 721.

6.1. Learned counsel also points out that neither there were pleadings

nor any observation in the order passed by learned Election Tribunal that the

votes casted in favour of the appellant were to be treated as thrown away

upon finding that her nomination was wrongly accepted. He submits that in

the absence of any such specific pleadings by respondent No.2, by treating

the votes casted in favour of the appellant to be thrown away, respondent

No.2 could not have been declared elected. He thus, submits that the

decision dated 31.10.2025 passed by learned Election Tribunal, was liable to

be set aside.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of

respondent No.2 submits that as per the provisions of the 1994 Act, the

appellant was required to be an elector of the Sabha Area of Gajisalar and in

the absence of appellant being an elector entered under the electoral roll for

Gram Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar, she was never eligible to contest the

election for Sarpanch of the said village and therefore, the learned Election

Tribunal, rightly set aside the election by accepting the election petition.

7.1. Learned counsel further submits that in the given circumstances

when there were only two candidates and the total votes polled were 830,

out of which, the appellant got 474 votes, whereas respondent No.2 got 356

valid votes, the learned Election Tribunal rightly declared respondent No.2

as the elected candidate having obtained second highest valid votes in her

favour, by treating the votes casted in favour of appellant to be thrown away.

In support, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment passed by the

respondopt tN.2sail ppNpp

Hon’ble Apex Court in  “Ramadebi Rautray vs. State of Odisha and

others”, reported as 2026 INSC 243. Thus, learned counsel submitted that

the present appeal was liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf

of the appellant.

9. Keeping in mind the controversy involved, it may be relevant to

take note of the following provisions of the 1994 Act:-

SECTION 2(    b  )  

(b)      "constituency" means an area of a Panchayat or a Municipality

delimited as a constituency for the purpose of elections to these bodies;

SECTION 2(    h  )  

(h)     "elector" in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is

entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force

and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in section 11;

SECTION 11   

11. Disqualifications for membership of a Panchayat or a Municipality

A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of

w.9wPG4wBw,.m7.w.iDPvGvEwCv,Bg.p

(a) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of

a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence

to a foreign State; or

(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; or

(d) if he has in proceedings for questioning the validity or regularity of an

election, been found guilty of any corrupt practice; or

(e) if he has been found guilty of any offence punishable under Section 153A

or section 171E or section 171F or section 376 or section 376A Or section

376B or section 376C or section 376D or section 498A or section 505 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1960 or any offence punishable under Chapter XIII of

this Act unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date of such

conviction; or

(f) if he holds an office of profit under a Panchayat or a Municipality; or

(g) if he holds an office of profit under the Government of India or any State

Government; or

(h) if he is interested in any subsisting contract made with, or any work being

done for, that Panchayat or Municipality except as w.y4w7jp4mCuj7.2m,4j7.,4wP

a Director) in an incorporated company or as a membj7.m0.w.GmpmEj7w,v1j

society; or

(i) if he is retained or employed in any professional capacity either personally

or in the name of a firm in which he is a partner, or with which he is engaged

in a professional capacity, in connection with any cause or proceeding in

(herinairftfd oes“1 rrirr

which the Panchayat or the Municipality is interested or concerned; or

(j) if he, having held any office under the State Government or any Panchayat

or any Municipality or any other State level authority or any Government

company or any corporate body owned or controlled by the State

Government or Government of India, has been dismissed from service, unless

a period of four years has elapsed since his dismissal.

SECTION 24   

24. Electoral Rolls for every constituency

For every Panchayat and Municipality there shall be an electoral roll which

shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act, under the

superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.

SECTION 30   

30. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls

(1)     The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the

prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into

force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules

made under this Act.

of1ccccc<8v vRv)KSGlR GSRR 2SG vl)8 )SjyKuKmvj).9rr

(a)      shall unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons

to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to

K8v ImlRu2.ujO ClKvr

(i)       before each general election to a Panchayat or a

Municipality; and

ouu1ccccccAv2SGv  vl)8 A.vrvRv)KuSj KS 2uRR  l )lymlR vacancy in a

Panchayat or a Municipality; and

(b)      may be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to

the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the Election

Commission:

Provided that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, the validity or

continued operation of the electoral roll shall not be affected.

on1ccccc>SKbuK8yKljCujO lj.K8ujO )SjKlujvC uj ymAryection (2), the Election

Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct for

special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a

constituency in such manner, as it may think fit:

Provided that subject to the provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the

constituency as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall

continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision so directed.

SECTION 38   

38   -   Presentation   of   nomination   paper   and   requirements   for   a   valid

nomination

(1)     On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of section 35, each

candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of

eleven O'clock in the forenoon and three O'clock in the afternoon deliver to

the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued

under Section 36, a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and

signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer:

Provided that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning

(herinairftfd oes“1 rr-rr

Officer on a day which is a public holiday.

(2)     In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall not be

deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination

paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular caste of which

he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste is a Schedule

Caste of the State.

(3)     Where the candidate is a person who, having, held any office referred

to in clause (j) of section 11 has been dismissed and a period of four years

has not elapsed since the dismissal, such person shall not be deemed to be

duly nominated as a candidate unless his nomination paper is accompanied

by a certificate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission

to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the

State.

(4)     On the presentation of nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall

satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidates

and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those

entered in the electoral rolls:

Provided that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical

or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or

any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or

the nomination paper and no clerical or technical or printing error in regard

to the electoral rolls numbers of any such person in the electoral roll or the

nomination paper, shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll or the

nomination paper with respect to such person or place in any case where the

description in regard to the name of the person or place is such as to be

commonly understood; and the Returning Officer shall permit any such

misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical or printing error

to be corrected and where necessary direct that any such misnomer,

inaccurate description, clerical or technical or printing error in the electoral

roll or in the nomination paper shall be overlooked.

(5)     Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being

nominated by more than one nomination paper:

Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented by or

on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the Returning Officer for election

in the same constituency.

SECTION 76   

76. Presentation of petition.— (1) An election petition may be presented on

Sjv SG PSGv S2 K8v OGSmjCy y3v)u2uvC uj ymAryv)KuSj (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 dates of their election, 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 petition and every such copy shall

be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the

petition.

SECTION 89   

89. Grounds for declaring election to be void:r oN1 MmA6v)K KS K8v 3GSpuyuSjy

S2 ymAr ;GSmjCy 2SG yv)KuSj of19 u2 K8v —Rv)KuSj <Gibunal is of the declaring

S3ujuSj9rr vRv)KuSj KS

(a) that on the. date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified, or

was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution of India or

respondopt tN.2sail ppRpp

under this Act; or

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or

his election agent or by other person with the consent of a returned candidate

or his election agent ; or

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

(d) that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate,

4wy.cjjP.kw,j7vwCCB.w00jG,jugpp

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination ; or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the

returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent : or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or

the reception of any vote which is void ; or

2v1l.cB.wPB.PmPpGmkECvwPGj.Av,4.,4j.E7m1vyvmPy.m0.,he Constitution

of India or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this

Act, the Election Tribunal shall declare the election of the

returned candidate to be void.

(2) If in the opinion of the Election Tribunal a returned candidate has

been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice,

cD,.,4j.TCjG,vmP.q7vcDPwC.vy.yw,vy0vjugpp

(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by

the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was

committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the candidate

or his election agent;

(b) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable

means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election :

and

(c) that in all other respects, the election was free from any

corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; then the

Election Tribunal may decide that the election of the returned candidate is

not void.

(3) In this section, the expression 'agent' has the same meaning as assigned to

it in Explanation (1) given under clause (9) of section 108, but does not

include election agent.

10. Further, it would also be important to go through the following

rules and provisions under Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Punjab

Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

S

ECTION 2(   

y  ) OF THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994   

2(y) “Gram Sabha” means a body consisting of persons

registered as voters in the electoral rolls of the area of the Gram Panchayat,

constituted under Section 3 of this Act;

SECTION 2(   

z  ) OF THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994   

2(z) “Gram Sabha area” means territorial area of a Gram

Sabha;

SECTION 4 OF THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994   

4. Constitution of Gram Sabhas. (1) The State Government

(herinairftfd oes“1 rrVrr

may. by notification establish a Gram Sabha by name for every area declared

as Gram Sabha area under section 3.

(2) Every person who is entered as voter on the electoral roll

prepared by the State Election Commission and for the time being in force

pertaining to the area of a Gram Sabha, shall be member of the Gram Sabha.

RULE 2 OF THE 1994 RULES   

2. Definition.— In these rules, unless the context otherwise requuGvC=r

(a) 'Agent" means any person appointed in writing by a

candidate at an election to be his agent for the purposes of these rules, with

the acceptance by such persons of the office of such election agent;

(b) Backward Classes means castes, races or classes declared

as Backward Classes by the State Government from time to time

(c) 'Commission" means the State Ejection Commission;

(d) 'Section means election of a Panch, Sarpanch of a Gram

Danchayat, member of Panchayat Samiti, Zila ParishaC rrrrrD9

(e) Elector means a person who is entered in the electoral roll

for the ram Panchayat elections held in January. 1993, as revised at the time

of election to be held from time to time

(f) Form means a form appended tn these rules,

(g) Government' means the Government of Punjab.

(h) 'Act means the Punjab State Election Commission Act,

1994,

(i) ‘Political party" means an association or a body of

individual citizens of India registered with the Election Commission as a

political party under Representation of the People Act, 1951

(j) ‘Section' means a section of the Act.

RULE 9 OF THE 1994 RULES   

9. Presentation of nomination papers (Section38).— (1) Nomination papers

shall be presented to the Returning Officer in Form IV in person by the

candidate himself on or before the date, time and place fixed for filing the

nomination papers.

(2) The nomination papers of a member of Scheduled Castes

or Backward Glasses shall also be accompanied by a Cv)RlGlKuSj uj (SGPr

qFrhrN4

Provided that no person snail propose Or second more than

one candidate and the candidate himself shall not propose or second the

name of any other candidate.

Provided further that the candidate contesting for Gram

Panchayat should be an elector in the Sabha Area and candidate contesting

for Panchayat Saniiti should be an elector in the concerned constituency of

that Samiti Area and candidate contesting for Zila Parishad should be an

elector in the concerned constituency of that Zila Parishad area.

(3) The nomination of each candidate shall be made on a

yv3lGlKv jSPujlKuSj (SGP ly 3Gvy)GuAvC uj ymArGmRv (1) above and must be

subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination.

(4) the nomination of a member of Scheduled Caste from a

constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes, as the case

respondopt tN.2sail pp( pp

may be shall be accompanied by a declaration verified by an (MP.. M.L.A.],

iw:vy,7w,jg.qj4yvCuw7g.’wvcpqj4yvCuw7.0m7.9wPG4wBw, Samiiti and for Zila

Perished by (M.P., M L.A.) Magistrate, Tehsildar, or any other gazetted

officer specifying the particulars of the caste to which the candidate belongs.

(5) The nomination paper shall be accompanied by a fee Rs.

100 for a Panch or Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Rs. 200 for member of

the Panchayat Samiti and Rs 400 for member of the lb Parishad:

Provided that for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes the

0jj.MvCC.cj.4wC0.m0.,4j.0jj.yEjGv0vju.vP.yDcp7DCj.23).

11. The objective underlying the Punjab State Election Commission

Act, 1994 is that separate electoral rolls be prepared and maintained for

elections to Panchayats and Municipalities in the State, distinct from the

rolls prepared for any other election. This scheme flows from Sections 24

and 30(2) of the 1994 Act, under which every constituency, being an area of

a Panchayat or Municipality as defined in Section 2(b) of the 1994 Act, is to

have its own electoral roll, revised before each general election. An elector,

in terms of Section 2(h) of the 1994 Act, is a person whose name is entered

in the electoral roll of that particular constituency and who is not subject to

any disqualification specified in Section 11 of the 1994 Act. Rule 9 of the

Rules imposes the further condition that a candidate contesting for Gram

Panchayat must be an elector in the Sabha Area, and Section 38(4) of the

1994 Act correspondingly obliges the Returning Officer, at the time of

presentation of the nomination paper, to satisfy himself that the name and

electoral roll number of the candidate correspond to those entered in the

electoral roll.

12. The expression Sabha Area takes its content from Sections 2(y),

2(z) and 4 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, being the territorial area

of a Gram Sabha established by notification under Section 3 of that Act,

whose members are the persons entered as voters on the electoral roll

respondopt tN.2sail pp((pp

pertaining to that area. The conjoint effect of the provisions noticed above is

therefore that a candidate seeking to contest an election to a Gram Panchayat

must be an elector borne on the electoral roll of that very Gram Panchayat,

and entry on the roll of any other constituency, howsoever the area may

overlap, does not answer that requirement.

13. Tested on this touchstone, the appellant was admittedly never

recorded as a voter in the electoral rolls of the Sabha Area of Gram

Panchayat, Dera Gajisalar. No evidence was led before the learned Election

Tribunal to establish the contrary. She was accordingly not qualified to

contest the election, and her election was liable to be declared void under

Section 89(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. The learned Election Tribunal having so

held, the finding calls for no interference.

14.  Another point for consideration before this Court in the present

appeal is, whether in the given facts and circumstances when there were only

two candidates contesting for the post of Sarpanch of Village Dera Gajisalar,

the defeated candidate can be declared elected by treating the votes casted in

favour of the returned candidate as thrown away, once the election of the

returned candidate was declared void on the ground of disqualification. In

this regard, reference needs to be made to Sections 79, 87 and 90 of the 1994

Act:

S

ECTION 79   

79. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.— A petitioner may, in

addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the

returned candidates is void, claim further declaration that he himself or any

other candidate may be declared as duly elected.

SECTION 87   

87. Decision of the Election Tribunal. — At the conclusion of the trial of an

election petition, the Election Tribunal may make an order for,—

(a) dismissing the election petition; or

respondopt tN.2sail pp(tpp

(b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void;

or

(c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void

and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected.

SECTION 90   

90. Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may

be declared to have been elected.— If any person who has filed an election

petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned

candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has

been duly elected and the Election Tribunal is of the opinion,—

(a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of

the valid votes; or

(b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt

practices, the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a

majority of the valid votes;

the Election Tribunal shall, after declaring the election of the returned

candidate to be void, declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the

case may be, to have been duly elected.

14.1. Upon a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that a petitioner

may, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of

the returned candidates is void, further claim that he himself or any other

candidate be declared duly elected, and that the Election Tribunal may pass

such an order where, in its opinion, the election petitioner or such other

candidate received a majority of the valid votes. The Hon'ble Apex Court

considered Sections 84 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act,

1951, which are in pari materia with Sections 79 and 90 of the 1994 Act, in

“Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and another”,

reported as 1969 AIR SC 604. The relevant paras of the said judgment are

reproduced hereunder:-

“6. Section 84

of the Representation of the People Act provides t4w,Hp

"A petitioner may, in addition to claiming a declaration that the

election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claim a further

declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected."

Nadgouda by his election petition did make a claim that the

jCjG,vmP.m0.KjuuB.cj.ujGCw7ju.1mvu.wPu.,4w,.4jp’wu:mDuw.pcj.ujGCw7ju.uDCB

elected. Section 100 sets out the grounds on which an election may be

declared void, and Section 101 sets out the grounds on which a candidate

other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. That

FAO63462025 (O&M) 13

section provides:

"If any person who has lodged a petition has, in addition to

calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claimed a

declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and

the High Court is of opinion

(a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of

the valid votes; or

(b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt

practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a

majority of the valid votes, "the High Court shall after declaring the election

of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other

candidate as the case may be, to have been duly elected."

The expression "valid votes'* used in Section 101 has not been

defined in the Act. But this Court has held in Keshav Laxman Borkars case,

that a candidate whose nomination paper is accepted after scrutiny, is a

validly nominated candidate "at least for the purpose of receiving votes at the

election", and that the candidate must be treated as a person for whom votes

could be given. The Court on that view held that where there are only two

candidates for a seat and the election of the candidate declared elected is set

aside on the ground that he was disqualified the defeated candidate cannot be

declared elected, and there must be a fresh election. In the opinion of the

Court the votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate cannot be said to

be thrown away unless there is a "special pleading" that certain voters had

cast their votes with the knowledge or notice that the candidate for whom

they had voted was not eligible for election, and they had deliberately thrown

away their votes in favour of the disqualified person: in the absence of such a

plea it cannot be said that the votes cast in favour of a person who was by

law disqualified from being nominated, but who was in fact nominated, were

thrown away. In the Court's view a defeated candidate out of the two who

contested the election may be declared elected under Section 84 read with

Section 101 of the Act, if he proves that the voters had notice of the

disqualification of the successful candidate. Correctness of this view is

challenged before us.

xxxxx

11. The cases decided by the Courts in the United Kingdom appear

to have proceeded upon some general rule of election law that the votes cast

in favour of a person who is found disqualified for election may be regarded

as thrown away only if the voters had notice before the poll of the

disqualification of the candidate.

12. But in our judgment the rule which has prevailed in the British

Courts for a long time has no application in our country. Section 53 of the

Representation of The People Act renders a poll necessary only if there are

more candidates contesting the election than the number of seats contested. If

the number of candidates validly nominated is equal to the number of seats to

be filled, no poll is necessary. Where by an erroneous order of the Returning

Officer poll is held which, but for that order, was not necessary, the Court

would be justified in declaring those contesting candidates elected, who, but

for the order, would have been declared elected. The rule enunciated by the

respondopt tN.2sail pp(dpp

Courts in the United Kingdom as only the merit of antiquity. But the rule

cannot be extended to trial of disputes under our election law, for it is not

consistent with our statute law, and in any case the conditions prevailing in

our country do not justify the application of that rule. If the rule is applied in

our country, the provisions of Section 84 read with Section 101(a) would

practically be nugatory. Apart from the immense cost of intimating each voter

in the vast electorate in the constituencies the rule that a defeated candidate

may be declared elected only if he pleads and proves that the voters had

notice of the disqualification would render the exception in the context of

prevailing illiteracy and ignorance of large sections of the electorate in our

country, a dead letter. A very large percentage of the electorate in our

country is, unfortunately illiterate and sections thereof not infrequently speak

a language different from the language of the Majorv,Bh.;,.AmDCu.cj.AjCCpPv:4

impossible to give information of the disqualification of a candidate in a

medium which the illiterate electors understand. We are again unable to

see any logic in the assumption that votes cast in favour of a person who is

regarded by the returning officer as validly nominated but who is in truth

disqualified, could still be treated as valid votes, for the purposes of

determining whether a fresh election should be held. When there are only two

contesting candidates, and one of them is under a statutory disqualification,

votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate may be regarded as thrown

away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the

disqualification. This is not to say that where there are more than two

candidates in the field for a single seat, and one alone is disqualified, on

proof of disqualification all the votes cast in his favour will be discarded and

the candidate securing the next highest number of votes will be declared

elected. In such a case, question of notice to the voters may assume

significance, for the voters may not, if aware of the disqualification have

voted for the disqualified candidate.

xxxxx

14.  We are of the view that Keshav Laxman Borkar's case, (1960) 1

SCR 962 was not correctly decided. We, therefore, restore the order passed

by this Court by judgment dated July 19, 1968. Reddy will pay the costs of the

review petition as well as of the appeal.”

14.2. From the above, it is apparent that where there are only two

contesting candidates and one of them is under a statutory disqualification,

the votes casted in favour of the disqualified candidate may be regarded as

thrown away, and the Court is bound to declare the other candidate elected

if, excluding the votes polled by the disqualified returned candidate, such

candidate would have secured a majority of the valid votes. Applying this

principle   to   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the   appellant   having   been

respondopt tN.2sail pp(Npp

disqualified from contesting, the votes casted in her favour were necessarily

liable to be treated as thrown away, leaving respondent No.2 as the recipient

of the majority of the remaining valid votes. The learned Election Tribunal

was therefore justified in declaring respondent No.2 as the elected Sarpanch.

14.3.  The reliance placed on behalf of respondent No.2 upon the recent

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramadebi Rautray’s case (supra), is

well founded. There too, the election petitioner and the returned candidate

were the only two contestants for the post of Chairman of a Panchayat

Samiti;   the   returned   candidate   was   found   to   be   under   a   statutory

disqualification; and the Election Tribunal, having declared her election

void, declared the election petitioner, being the next highest vote-getter, to

have been duly elected. The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court set aside

that consequential declaration and directed a fresh election. Restoring the

order of the Election Tribunal, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that with the

disqualification of the returned candidate affirmed, no other contestant

remained in the fray, and that to deprive the election petitioner of the fruits

of her successful challenge by requiring her to contest a fresh election would

amount to a travesty of justice. Section 44-E of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti

Act, 1959, there considered, is in terms virtually identical to Section 79 of

the 1994 Act. So far as the reliance placed on behalf of the appellant upon

Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra) is misplaced. That case arose under Section

176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, a different enactment, and in

the humble opinion of this Court, the law laid down in  Vishwanatha

Reddy’s case (supra) does not appear to have been noticed therein. In any

event, the view taken in Vishwanatha Reddy's case (supra) also accords

with   the   more   recent   decision   in  Ramadebi   Rautray's   case   (supra),

respondopt tN.2sail pp(opp

rendered on materially similar facts.

15. Likewise, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no merit

in   the   contention   raised   on   behalf   of   the   appellant  that   the   issue   of

maintainability was not specifically dealt with by the learned Election

Tribunal. The only ground urged in this behalf is that, in terms of Section

76(2) of the 1994 Act, the requisite number of copies of the election petition

were not presented at the time of its filing, and that the petition was therefore

not maintainable. A perusal of the record shows that no such objection was

pleaded in the written statement filed by the appellant before the learned

Election Tribunal, nor was it established by leading any evidence. In these

circumstances, the objection as to the maintainability of the election petition

preferred at the instance of respondent No.2 is without substance.

16. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the

present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

17.09.2026      (HARKESH MANUJA)

sonika              JUDGE

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable:            Yes/  No