E-Paper
AAP candidates move HC seeking quashing of Chandigarh mayoral elections
In the January 8 Chandigarh mayoral elections, BJP’s first-time councillor Sarabjit Kaur Dhillon had won after defeating AAP’s Anju Katyal by one vote
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidates, who lost the mayor, senior deputy mayor and deputy mayor elections in Chandigarh on January 8, have approached the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking quashing of the elections.
The court will take up the plea on January 19.
In the January 8 mayoral elections, BJP’s first-time councillor Sarabjit Kaur Dhillon had won after defeating AAP’s Anju Katyal by one vote.
While Kaur received 14 votes, Katyal managed 13, as one AAP vote was declared invalid, tipping the election in the former’s favour.
In the polls for the senior deputy mayor, the BJP candidate, Dalip Sharma, pipped AAP candidate Prem Lata by two votes. Sharma polled 15 votes, while Lata got 13.
For the deputy mayor’s post, after BJP’s Anup Gupta and AAP’s Ram Chander Yadav were tied at 14 votes each, a draw of lot was conducted, which went in Gupta’s favour.
The results of the Chandigarh civic body polls, which were declared on December 27 last year, had thrown up a hung House, with the AAP winning 14 of the 35 wards in its first civic body elections.
The BJP won 12 seats, the Congress eight and the SAD got one. For the mayoral polls, both the AAP and the BJP had 14 votes, including the MP’s vote, while the Congress and the SAD skipped the poll process.
In their plea, the AAP candidates have alleged that the BJP indulged in horse-trading and also levelled allegations against BJP’s Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, who was the presiding officer in the January 8 elections.
They said as per the prevailing practice and norms for the mayoral elections, only a nominated councillor could be the presiding officer. But the process to select nominated councillors was delayed and Sidhu was chosen as the presiding officer.
They also questioned why one torn vote in the mayor’s election was not declared invalid by the presiding officer, while another with a “tick mark” was.
Stating that instead of secret ballot, open voting should have been allowed, they demanded that re-polls be ordered and poll-related record be summoned from the municipal corporation.
