LAWS(HPH)-2014-10-5

DEVER NATH Vs. KEDAR SINGH

Decided On October 09, 2014
Dever Nath Appellant
V/S
KEDAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority) under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Kinnaur District at Reckong Peo, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed thereby upholding the order dated 14.5.2014 passed by Hon'ble SDO(C) -cum -authorized Officer Kalpa at Reckong Peo, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for deleting his name from the election proceedings.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed, one Kedar Singh filed an election petition against Bhupinder Singh and others, wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 8. Apart from other allegations in the petition, specific allegations were made against respondent No. 8 who happened to be Assistant Returning Officer in the election. The petitioner initially approached the competent authority by moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for deletion of his name which was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that most of the allegations raised in the petitioner relate to the respondent and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to strike off the name of the petitioner from the list of the respondents. It was also held that there was no restriction placed under Section 163(a) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act that Assistant Returning Officer or Returning Officer whose conduct is challenged can not be made a party.

(3.) IN this petition both the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that impugned orders have been passed by the authorities without due application of mind and further the authorities have failed to taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner had no axe to grind and was carrying and discharging his duties in the capacity of a government servant and therefore, he can not be arrayed as a party respondent to the election petition.