DHANI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are dealt with together since they raise the common question of law though each case after the decision on the common question of law has to be dealt with on its own individual merits.

(2.) The Petitioner in this writ petition has been elected to the office of Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sharyana, Solan Block, District Solan after contesting the election held for the said office along with Respondent No. 4 and pro forma Respondent No. 7. The notification relating to the election programme stipulated that the date for filing nomination papers is from 1.12.1995 to 4.12.1995, with 5.12.1995 fixed as the date for scrutiny of nomination papers and 7.12.1995 being the date fixed for publishing the list of valid nominations before the actual poll is to take effect. It appears that the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and pro forma Respondents No. 5 to 8 have filed their nomination papers for the office in question and the Assistant Returning Officer, who took up for scrutiny seems to have rejected all the nomination papers except that of pro forma Respondent No. 7. There is no serious dispute over this factual position, but it appears on the next day i.e. 6.12.1995, the Assistant Returning Officer on realising the said mistake committed by him accepted all the nomination papers except that of pro forma Respondent No. 8 and published the list of valid nomination duly accepted on 7.12.1995. On that basis the elections were held and, as noticed earlier, the Petitioner was elected to the office and his success and election to the office of Up-Pradhan in question was duly notified. While the matter stood thus, the 4th Respondent, who was one of the candidates, who contested the election and a voter by name Liaq Ram jointly filed an election petition under Section 175 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to set aside the election of the writ Petitioner. The main as well as substantial ground of challenge was that on account of certain defects in the nomination papers on 5.12.1995 except one nomination filed by pro forma Respondent No 7, the others were rejected and the same came to be unilaterally changed by accepting those nominations, which were rejected on 5.12.1995 also on 6.12.1995 and this vitiated the entire election process resulting in the declaration of the Petitioner as having won the office in question. The said election petition was contested by the 1st Respondent before the first authority below (the Petitioner herein) by filing a detailed reply. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Solan by his order dated 30.12.1996 found substance in the allegations made about the initial rejection of the nominations and acceptance of such rejected nominations on the next day, which according to the authority below was in contravention of the Rules as also the programme notified for the election and, therefore, the election process stood vitiated and as a consequence thereof set aside the election of the Petitioner as Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat in question. The said authority also directed consequential steps being taken further in this regard.

(3.) Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan and by an order dated 30.12.1997, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings recorded and the decision arrived at, as a consequence thereof by the original authority. Hence, the above writ petition.