AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra Division, Dharamsala and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dharamsala rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment.

(2.) The relevant facts are these. There was an election of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Khaira. The petitioner was one of the candidates. However, it was Jagjiwan Paul, respondent No. 3, who won the election and became the Pradhan. The petitioner filed an election petition under Section 168 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (referred to as the Act). Various grounds challenging the election were raised. It may be noticed that the result of the election was declared on 20-11-1978, immediately after the elections were held on the same day. The election petition could be filed within a period of 30 days of the publication of the result. The application for amendment was filed on 9-7-1980, that is, long after the period of limitation for filing the election petition had expired.

(3.) Now, the amendment asked for may be noticed. By the application for amendment a new ground for challenging the election was sought to be introduced. This ground reads : "2-A. That the respondent was a whole time salaried servant of Kasba Khaira Agricultural Co-operative Service Society at the time of filing his nomination papers and at the time of polling. Thus the respondent never qualified to contest the election of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Khaira under Section 9 of the Act. This fact was deliberately concealed by the respondent at the time of filing nomination papers and afterwards." Mr. Ramesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the amendment asked for was indeed a belated one but, in the interest of justice, it should have been allowed and the party compensated in terms of costs. In the instant case, as already observed, a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner inasmuch as that after the expiry of the period of limitation, his election could not be challenged on a ground which was not the basis of the election petition. By allowing the amendment, this right would have been taken away and it cannot be compensated in terms of money.