Delhi High Court
Bupinder Singh Bhullar vs Directorate Of Gurdwara ... on 30 November, 2021
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30th November, 2021
+ FAO 250/2021
BUPINDER SINGH BHULLAR ..... Appellant
versus
DIRECTORATE OF GURDWARA
ELECTIONS AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashank Garg and Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advocates
(through VC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel Govt of NCT of
Delhi Respondent No.1 & 2
Mr. Naginder Benipal, Advocate for Respondent no. 3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CM APPL. 39890-91/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO 250/2021&CM APPL. 39889/2021 (stay)
1. Appellant impugns order dated 25.09.2021, whereby appellant has
been restrained, till disposal of the election petition, from voting for
electing, co-option of executive members of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara
Management Committee.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.12.2021
Signing Date:01.12.2021 19:24:20 09:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
2. Respondent No.3 had filed the subject election petition impugning
the declaration of results of the election for Ward No.46, Preet Vihar of the
Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee.
3. The contention of the election petitioner inter alia is that valid votes
polled in favour of the election petitioner were incorrectly declared invalid.
Further, it is contended that there was an incorrect counting even of the
valid votes.
4. On 15.11.2021 with the consent of parties, a recount of the valid
votes was directed to be conducted under the supervision of Director of
Gurdwara Election and under the observation of a former Judge of this
Court.
5. After a recount, a report has been filed by the Director, Gurdwara
Election over e-mail of the Court Master. The same is taken on record.
6. As per the recount, the votes polled in favour of the appellant
continue to remain the same i.e. 923. Whereas the votes polled in favour of
respondent no. 3 have increased from 917 to 919, which is still less than the
votes polled in favour of the appellant.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that 131
votes which were declared invalid by the Returning Officer need to be
rechecked to ascertain as to whether the same have been correctly rejected
or not. He submits that as per his instructions after rechecking, respondent
no. 3 is likely to succeed in the said election.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.12.2021
Signing Date:01.12.2021 19:24:20 09:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the rules do not
permit a recheck but only permit a recount, which has been done.
9. In my view the challenge of respondent no. 3 in the election petition
with regard to the alleged wrongful rejection of the 131 votes and their
rechecking and also the allegation of malpractices are within the domain of
the Election Tribunal, which still has to take a view on the same.
10. The dispute in the present appeal pertains only to the interim order
dated 25.09.2021 wherein, even after holding that the appellant has secured
more votes, the Election Tribunal has restrained the appellant from voting
for electing co-option and Executive Committee Members of the Delhi Sikh
Gurudwara Management Committee.
11. The objection of respondent no. 3 with regard to the non-compliance
of Rule 84 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, (Election
of Members) Rules, 1974 to a large extent has been redressed by this Court
by a recount and even after the said exercise, appellant has still secured
more votes than respondent no. 3.
12. In view of the result of the recount, I am of the view that the restraint
imposed on the appellant by the impugned order dated 25.09.2021, from
voting for electing, co-option of executive members of the Delhi Sikh
Gurdwara Management Committee, is not warranted.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
25.09.2021 is set aside.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.12.2021
Signing Date:01.12.2021 19:24:20 09:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 submits that
respondent no. 3 reserves the right to file an application before the Election
Tribunal for the purposes of re-checking of the 131 votes. He submits that
recounting process includes the process of re-checking.
15. This is disputed by learned counsel for the appellant who submits
that as per the rules only recounting is permitted respondent no. 3 cannot
raise the said issue.
16. Without getting into the said controversy, it is clarified that in case
an application is filed by the respondent no. 3 seeking recount /re-checking
of the 131 votes, same shall be disposed of by the Election Tribunal
expeditiously in accordance with the rules. All rights and contentions of the
parties are reserved.
17. Two sealed trunks as stated in the report have been produced in
Court. The same are returned unopened.
18. It is informed that the proceedings of re-count on 20.11.2021 carried
on for over 5 hours. Accordingly, fee of the Court appointed observer is
enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which shall be equally shared
between appellant and respondent no. 3.
19. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 30,2021/'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.12.2021
Signing Date:01.12.2021 19:24:20 09:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
