In a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge the proceedings of a Panchayat Samiti meeting held on 14-03-2026, wherein respondents 4 and 5 were elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, a Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda did not find any ground to interfere in the present matter and held that the petitioners were at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as admissible to them under law.
The petitioners asserted that a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, Mansa, was convened on 03-03-2026 for election to the post of Chairman/Vice Chairman, but was unlawfully adjourned to 05-03-2026 and further adjourned to 14-03-2026 without any cogent reason. The petitioners were aggrieved because they were not allowed to attend the meeting by being held captive, and because the election process was contrary to Rule 45(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Election of Sarpanches and Panches) Rules, 1994 (1994 Rules).
Regarding whether the petitioners were locked in a particular room to prevent them from casting their votes at the meeting, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2848/2021] and said that where any disputed fact goes to the root of the case, proceedings under Article 226 should not be undertaken to decide such a disputed question of fact.
The Court stated that keeping in mind the finding recorded in Rana Inder Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [CWP-9662-2026] wherein the petitioners were directed to avail the remedy before the Election Tribunal, the present matter was also required to be decided on similar terms. Further, the Court said that once the State is before this Court, the election petition regarding the resolution dated 14-03-2026 is maintainable; the Election Tribunal will not be within its jurisdiction to hold that the election petition is not maintainable under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994.
The Court stated that the ground under Section 89(2) would be sufficient to decide the election petition on the present facts, since the petitioners had alleged that the returned candidate was selected through corrupt practices. Hence, the Court held that the election petition would be maintainable before the Election Tribunal.
Thus, the Court disposed of the petition and gave liberty to the petitioners to avail an appropriate remedy under law.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Ashok Aggarwal (Sr. Adv), Mr. Shrenik Jain, Mr. Arshdeep S. Kaler, Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Mr. Navdeep S. Khokhar
For Respondents – Mr. Rahul Rampal (Addl. A.G.)
