(1.) ELECTIONS to the Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. were held in the year 2005. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 herein had filed their nomination papers for being elected as Ward Members from Ward No.5, Nadaun. The nomination paper of the petitioner was accepted. The petitioner however objected to the nomination paper filed by respondent No.5 on various grounds. The nomination paper of respondent No.5 was rejected by the Returning Officer on 6.11.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was elected and respondent No.5 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner and one of the main grounds taken was that the nomination paper of respondent No.5 had wrongly been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner was admittedly served in the election petition and was represented by a counsel but his counsel did not appear and the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. The Collector who is the prescribed authority to hear the proceedings came to the conclusion that the nomination paper of respondent No.5 had wrongly been rejected and allowed the petition on 5.10.2006. The petitioner herein filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. the Director Urban Local Bodies, Shimla and this appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17.1.2007. The orders of the Collector as well as the Director are under challenge before us.
(3.) THE first contention raised by Sh.Surinder Sharma is that the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding was wrongly rejected. According to the petitioner his counsel had filed power of attorney on his behalf before the respondent No.4 on 22.6.2006. The case of the petitioner is that the matter was adjourned to 19.7.2006 as noted by the petitioner's counsel. The allegation made in the writ petition is that the date was changed from 19.7.2006 to 28.6.2006 without informing the petitioner or his counsel and the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte on 28.6.2006. As per the averments made in para 15 of the petition, the petition was thereafter adjourned to 5.7.2006 and thereafter to 19.7.2006. The petitioner alleges that he had filed an application for setting aside the order dated 19.7.2006 on 14.8.2006. He has however not filed copy of the application filed by him but has filed copy of the reply filed by respondent No.5. In the reply respondent No.5 took an objection that the petitioner had been proceeded against ex-parte on 28.6.2006 and not on 19.7.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amending the application under Order 9 Rule 7 seeking change of date of order from 28.6.2006 to 19.7.2006. Sh.Surinder Sharma contended that respondent No.4 gravely erred in not accepting the application filed by the petitioner.