BALBIR BAGGA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has raised challenge to the election of respondent No. 5 as Chairman, Zila Parishad, Una. The petitioner had filed an election petition in terms of Section 163 of the H. P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of respondent No. 5. This petition was allowed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 7-8-2006 Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal against this order and this appeal has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 11-12-2006. Hence the present petition.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present case are that both, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were elected as members of the Zila Parishad. Una. Election to the posts of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Zila Parishad is held from amongst the members. The election is held by secret ballot. Rule 86 (13) (15) and (17) of the H. P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Election Rules) which are relevant reads as follows :-

(3.) Election to the post of Chairman of Zila Parishad, Una was held on 16-1-2006. The stand of the petitioner is that one vote which was marked as * instead of X was initially declared invalid by the Returning Officer. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the Returning Officer received a telephonic call on his mobile phone. Then he went to the toilet and when he returned, he declared the vote to be valid.