KARTAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala on 9.4.2007 in case No. 10/2006/.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Ashapuri Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra in the year 2005. He was administered oath of office in the month of January, 2006. The respondents No.4 to 6 filed an election petition under Section 175 of the H.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for declaring the election of the petitioner null and void. The principal ground taken before the Authorized Officer was that the nomination papers of the petitioner were wrongly accepted by the Assistant Returning Officer since according to respondents No.4 to 6 he had encroached upon the Government land and was disqualified from contesting the election as per provisions of Section 122 sub -section (1) clause (c ) of the Act. He filed detailed reply to the election petition and had denied the averments contained therein with regard to wrongfully acceptance of his nomination papers. He had specifically denied that he had encroached upon any Government land. The Authorized Officer passed the order on 30th December, 2006 against the petitioner and declared that he was not qualified to be elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Ashapuri on the ground that he had encroached upon the Government land. His election was declared null and void. He further ordered to hold a fresh election after the period o limitation for appeal. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2006 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala on 16.11 2006. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 9.4.2007.

(3.) Mr. Ramakant Sharma had strenuously argued that the order passed by the Authorized Officer on 30.10.2006 and the appellate order dated 9.4.2007 are not sustainable in the eyes of law since they are against the provisions of law. He had contended that the appellate order is not a speaking order. The learned Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Vashist appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the orders passed by the Authorized Officer and the Deputy Commissioner.