Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anju Bala vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 February, 2021
CWP No. 3041 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3041 of 2021
Date of decision : 12.2.2021
Anju Bala .... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sant Parkash
Present Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Suveer Shoekand, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
[The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing
since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.]
Jaswant Singh, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is one of the Contestants for the election as a
Member of the Municipal Corporation, Moga, from Ward No. 13. The
petitioner is contesting election on the Akali Dal Party's ticket.
It is averred that respondent no.6 -Smt. Vandana Dhamija, who
is a contestant from the same ward on the Congress Party ticket, is the wife
of Jatinder Kumar Dhamija alais Neela, who is a person of criminal nature
and known gangster of the area.
The prayer of the petitioner is two fold:
i) For issuance of Mandamus directing the Election
Commission Authorities to install CCTV Camera in
the Polling Booths for Ward No. 13, as the petitioner
apprehends booth capturing.
ii) For issuance of direction to respondent no. 4 - Senior
Superintendent of Police, Moga, to provide security/
protection to the petitioner so as to ensure protection
of his life and liberty.
1 of 2
Learned State counsel submits that vis-a-vis the first prayer, in
view of the directions given in Para 6, Clause (v) of judgment dated
24.5.2012 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9601 of
2012 - Krishan Kumar Sharma and others vs State of Punjab and others,
the State Election Commission, Punjab, has issued directions on 29.1.2021,
directing the Returning Officers to permit the videography by the candidates
at their own expenses outside the polling booths of their respective wards.
He further states that in the present case the same order has been passed, in
case if not passed, would be passed today itself.
In view of the aforesaid stand of the State through the learned
State counsel, nothing survives vis-a-vis the first prayer is concerned.
With regard to the second prayer, we are not inclined to pass
any specific order as the State Police is even otherwise under Constitutional
obligation to protect the life and liberty of all the citizens and get the
elections conducted in a free and fair manner.
The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
The State shall be bound by its aforesaid stand.
(Jaswant Singh)
Judge
12.2.2021 (Sant Parkash)
vs Judge
Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
