DEEPENDER ROHAL Vs. SURESH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following interesting question of law arises in this petition:

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Anandpur, Block Mashobra, Tehsil and District Shimla on 18.12.2005 and a notification in this regard was issued on 13.1.2006. His election was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing an Election Petition under Section 163 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Authorized Officer. The election petition was supported by an affidavit but was not verified as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the grounds taken in the election petition was that the Counting Officer in a well calculated move had wrongly and illegally declared 30 votes to be invalid. Other grounds taken were that the Counting Officers/Polling Officers were appointed in violation of the Rules and that in Ward No.4 the Polling Officer at the instance of the local officers purposely folded the valid papers in wrong manners which resulted in the ink being transferred to the other side and 30 votes were rejected. It was also alleged that the Counting Officers permitted an unauthorized person to enter the counting place. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 165 of the Act praying that the petition be dismissed since the same has not been filed in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. This application was contested by respondent No.1. The Sub Divisional Officer upheld the objection of the petitioner and held that the Election Petition was not filed in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act and was bound to be dismissed. The respondent No.1 filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh Darshan Singh and others, (2004)11 SCC 196, held that an election petition could not be dismissed in limine for non compliance of the provisions of Section 83(1) & (2) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the RP Act) and had to be heard on merits.

(3.) SECTIONS 81, 82, 83 and 86(i) of the RP Act reads as follows: "81.Presentation of petitions-(1)An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Explanation.-In this sub-section "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not. (2)omitted (3)Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.