A.S High School, Khanna Trust And Management Society vs. State Of Punjab And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, A.S. High School, Khanna Trust & Management Society, challenged orders dated 05.04.2024 and 06.04.2024 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Khanna, and the Chief Election Officer, respectively, which postponed the society's managing committee elections. The elections were initially scheduled for 31.03.2024. The SDM's initial advisory to postpone was based on the Lok Sabha elections, which was later clarified as an advisory, and the prior writ petition (CWP-6769-2024) was disposed of with the petitioner making its own security arrangements. Subsequently, the SDM ordered a postponement citing a possibility of breach of peace and the administration's inability to deploy police personnel, referencing an FIR from 2014 related to election disturbances and potential disruption by candidates. The petitioner argued that police personnel were deployed for IPL matches, contrasting it with the denial for their elections, and offered to bear proportionate costs.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner society agreed to submit a revised election schedule to the State of Punjab for conducting the election from the stage it was kept in abeyance. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khanna, who was present in court, stated there was no objection to this and assured that appropriate security arrangements would be made to ensure the election is held peacefully on the revised schedule, after the polling and counting for the State's Parliamentary elections are over. In light of this statement, the petitioner did not press the writ petition further at that stage. The Court directed the petitioner society to notify the revised polling schedule to the respondent authority by the first week of June 2024, and the State of Punjab was directed to ensure the requisite security arrangements to avoid any breach of law and order. The issue of whether the SDM acted within his jurisdiction and the justification of the State's claim of inability to deploy personnel were implicitly resolved by the parties' agreement and the SDM's assurance of making security arrangements on a revised schedule.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khanna, acted within his jurisdiction in ordering the postponement of the petitioner society's elections, considering the prior disposal of a writ petition where the State had no objection to the elections being held with the petitioner making its own security arrangements? 2. Whether the State's claim of inability to deploy police personnel for the society's elections is justified, especially in light of alleged deployment for IPL matches, and if the petitioner's offer to bear proportionate costs negates this claim? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the SDM's order was arbitrary, especially after the previous understanding that the society could conduct elections with its own security. They argued that the State's claim of lacking manpower was inconsistent with police deployment for IPL matches and that the petitioner was willing to pay for security. They also alleged political interference from a local MLA. Respondents' arguments: The State argued that the circumstances of IPL matches and the society's elections were inequitable due to the scale of crowds and international players involved in IPL. They also pointed out that the petitioner society had revised the election schedule twice, and proceeding with the current schedule would place the elections amidst the Parliamentary elections. The State denied any interference by a local MLA.