JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sh. Ishwar Rohal (hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate). He has challenged the orders passed by respondent No. 3 and 4 contained in Annexure-D and F, respectively in this writ petition. 2. Notice in this case was confined to respondent No. 1 only. 3. Admitted case of the parties is that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), filed his nomination paper for contesting the election as a member of Block Development Committee. The returned candidate was also one of the candidates who had filed his nomination paper. 4. Respondent filed his nomination paper on 29.11.2000. Objections against his nomination were filed on the same date. Respondent No. 2, Returning Officer called for the report from Patwari Halqua on these objections. And finally vide his order dated 1.12.2000, nomination paper of the respondent was rejected. 5. As a consequence of it returned candidate was declared as Member of the BDC on 2.12.2000. Being the only candidate left in the arena. 6. In this background, respondent challenged the election of the returned candidate under the provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Election Rules framed thereunder. For ready reference, relevant provisions of the Act to be referred to for deciding this case, are extracted herein below :- "164. (1) An election petition - (a) shall contain concise statement of the material fats on < which the petitioner relies, (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each" such practice, and c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleading; Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice. The petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 165. The petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 165. If the election petition is not furnished in the prescribed manner, or the petition is not presented within the period specified in section 163, the authorised officer shall dismiss the petition : Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard." 7. Rule 94 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, which is relevant for this case is also extracted herein below : "94. Presentation of petition. - (1) The election petition under Section 164 of the Act shall be presented Jo. the authorised officer under whose territorial jurisdiction the Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be situated. (2) The election petition shall enclose with the petition copies of the petition and of its enclosures equal to the number of respondents. (3) The affidavit referred to in the proviso to subsection (i) of Section 164 of the Act shall be in Form 43 and shall be shown in before a Magistrate." Form No. 43 as referred to in Rule 94 is as under :- "Form-43. (See Rule 91(3) I,..........................the petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in Shri/Shrimati......................from respondent No.................in the said petition make solemn affirmation/oath and say :- (a) that the statement made in paragraphs of the accompanying election petition about the commission of corrupt practice of...............and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs.............. of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge; (b) that the statement made in paragraphs.................of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of..............and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs..................... of the said petition and in paragraphs...............of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge; (c) (d) etc. Signature of deponent. Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Shri/Shrimati.............. at this.................day of............199.. Before me. Executive Magistrate." 8. What is further revealed from the record of election petition, being case No. 1 of 2000 is that it was presented on 8.12.20000 before the Authorised Officer. Admittedly allegations of corrupt practice having been indulged into, by the returned candidate are made, a ground for filing the petition. Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Shri/Shrimati.............. at this.................day of............199.. Before me. Executive Magistrate." 8. What is further revealed from the record of election petition, being case No. 1 of 2000 is that it was presented on 8.12.20000 before the Authorised Officer. Admittedly allegations of corrupt practice having been indulged into, by the returned candidate are made, a ground for filing the petition. What is stated in the affidavit supporting this election petition is as under :- "AFFIDAVIT I, Mahinder son of Ram Bhaj, resident of Ajni, Post office Anandpur, Tehsil and District Shimla (HP.), do hereby state on oath/solemn affirmation that I have read the accompanying petition under Section 175 read with Sections 161, 163, and 164 of the HP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the contents" thereof contained in paras 1 to 5 are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief and on the basis of legal advice received which I believe to be correct. I the above named deponent further state on oath that the contents of this affidavit of mine are true and correct; no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Signed and verified at Shimla on this 4th day of December, 2000. Sd/-DEPONENT." 9. It may also be noticed in the context of this affidavit that it is attested by Shri Bunesh Paul, Advocate, Oath Commissioner, Shimla, record of the case further shows that the Authorities Officer as well as the respondent merrily continued with the conduct of this election petition. Because the Authorised Officer forgot that in the matter of election petition, he was expected to look to the gravity and seriousness of the matter by disposing of the same with utmost expect and despatch. 10. Further returned candidate for the first time put in appearance on 10.9.2001, thereafter, he sought time for filing reply on more than ejght occasions. A perusal of the order-sheet in the election petition makes a dismal reading. Fact remains that no reply was filed till 8th April, 2002 despite date after date having been allowed for the purpose. 11. On 22.4.2002, an application under Section 165 of the Act was filed for dismissal of the election petition. By means of Annexure D, it was turned down. Fact remains that no reply was filed till 8th April, 2002 despite date after date having been allowed for the purpose. 11. On 22.4.2002, an application under Section 165 of the Act was filed for dismissal of the election petition. By means of Annexure D, it was turned down. When this order was challenged before the Appellate Authority by the returned candidate, his appeal was dismissed, hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Shri Kanwar, learned Senior Counsel while appearing in support of this petition, submitted by referring to the provisions of the Act and Election Rules extracted hereinabove, that even before issuing notice, Authorised Officer should have opened the Act as well as should have adverted to the rules. Reason being, that the election petition is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act as extracted hereinabove particularly Section 1"64(1)(b) and sub-section (2) thereof, read with Rule 94 and Form No. 43 (supra). According to him, respondent No. 3 has treated these provisions of law as non-est on the statute book. 13- By referring to the original record of the election petition, Shri Kanwar further pointed out that has been verified as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 164 supra. He also pointed out that the affidavit is not in form No. 43 as required under Rule 94 and is also not attested by a Magistrate as per law. Thus, he has prides for allowing this petition on this ground alone. According to him, both respondent No. 3 and 4 have gravely erred in ignoring this aspect of the case while rejecting the application of his client. 14. On the other hand, Shri Gupta learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, "submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. He farther; submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument without being conceded that there was any defect in the election petition and or in its affidavit as well as the annexes attached thereto not being verified, all these being curable defects as such, they do not in any manner affect the election petition so as to call for its dismissal at the initial stage. He further urged that the returned candidate has successfully whiled away more than two and half years without filing his reply to the main election petition, and has thus abused the process of law and court. He further submitted that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the orders passed by respondents No. 3 and 4 cannot termed to be either void or non-est calling for interference by this Court. According to him, a wrong order or even an illegal order, does not call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. It may also be noted that record of the Election Petition shows that so far provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act and the Election Rules extracted hereinabove are concerned they were not examined by the competent authority while issuing notice to the returned candidate. It hardly needs to be emphasised, as well as clarified that whether the election petition was or was not as per requirements of law was to be seen by the Authorised Officer. This could only be done, if he had cared to examine the election petition by referring to the provisions of the Act and Rules extracted hereinabove. Record of the case shows that except for giving date after date the Authorised Officer has not done anything in this matter/This is what is made out from the date to day orders passed by him in this case. He forgot the gravity and seriousness of the matter and also ignored the fact that the election petition needs to be disposed of at the earliest. Both sides made reference to the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, particularly its Section 86. 16. When a reference is made to Section 165 of the Act and Section 86 of the Act supra, what emerges on a comparative reading of both these sections is, how the authorities under both these provisions have to act after Election Petition is filed. 17. Before proceeding to deal with ate submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it may be noted that in the democratic set up, wishes of the electorate who have elected a candidate, have always been respected and given due weigh-tage. 17. Before proceeding to deal with ate submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it may be noted that in the democratic set up, wishes of the electorate who have elected a candidate, have always been respected and given due weigh-tage. These cannot be lightly upset or disturbed, unless of course the case falls within the mischief of Section 165 of the Act as unsurged by Shri Kanwar. This always has to be kept in view by the courts/Appellate Authorities dealing with the election petitions. Conduct of adjuring the case unnecessarily; by respondent No. 3 needs to be deprecated and further also needs to be viewed seriously while allowing adjournment one after the other to the returned candidate. It seems that he deal with the case as if he was dealing with an execute file. It is high time that those who are entrusted with such like duties view those more seriously, so that faith fn the system is not depleted and they do not become oblivious of what Is expected on them. 18. Shri Gupta, learned Counsel with a view to advance the case of his client that the defect in the affidavit, as well as in the verification of the annexes both being curable, therefore, the impugned orders Annexures D&F deserve to be upheld, referred to some decided cases to which a reference is being made hereinafter. 19. First case cited by him was Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, AIR 2001 S.C. page 600. In this case after referring to Section 86(1) it was held by the Supreme Court as under :- "An election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Act only if the election petition does not comply with either the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 107 of the Act. The requirement of filing an affidavit alongwith an election petition, in the prescribed form, in support of allegations of corrupt practice is contained in Section 83(1) of the Act. Thus an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act or of its proviso. Thus an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act or of its proviso. What other consequences, if any, may follow from an allegedly "defective affidavit is to be adjudged the trial of an election petition but Section 86(1) of the Act in terms cannot be attracted to such a case." 20. Similarly, other case referred to was G. Mallikarjunappa v. Shamanur Shivashankarappa, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1829, Sections 86(1) and 83 of 1951 Act supra referred to and it was held that election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine on the grounds that affidavit filed in support was not in appropriate form or that verification of affidavit and election petition did not tally. Thus, it was held that defect in verification and the affidavit is a curable defect. It was further held that consequences entailing from alleged defective affidavit is required to be adjudged at the trial. 21. In Anil R. Deshmukh v. Onkar N. Wagh and others, 1999(2) S.C.C. 205 similar view was taken by the Supreme Court. How and what circumstances, power is to be exercised by this Court under Article 227. 22. Shri Gupta learned Counsel also made reference to Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim, AIR 1984 S.C. 38, wherein it was held that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Errors of law cannot be corrected under this Article. Power of the High Court is1 limited to seeing that an inferior court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. 23. In a recent decision, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2003 Supreme Court Cases 524, examined the power of High Court under Article 227 of the-Constitution of India, and held as under "The Supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Articles 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record muchless of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 24. Looking to the legal position under the Act, as well as under the Representation of People Act, 1951 what emerges is that the ground for rejection under the act of 1951 .are limited to three sections only as contained in Section 86(1) thereof. These are that if the petition does not comply with the section 81, 82 and Section 117 the petition under 1951 Act is liable to be dismissed. As such, in the circumstances, above decisions and examination of law, the Supreme Court held that the defects in the affidavit and verification are curable defects. 25. Now, remains the question whether the Election Petition was furnished in the prescribed manner or not. When a reference is made to the impugned orders, this aspect of the case had been completely ignored by both respondent No. 3 and 4. In fact, they ought to have dealt with aspect and then proceeded further in examining the election petition as per law. Suffice it to say in this behalf that whether the election petition is to be dismissed or not ought to have been given into by both these respondents. 26. So far power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned it is not to be exercised either as an Appellate Authority or in routine and casual manner. Only fact has to be kept in view by this Court is, that the tribunals below like respondents Nos. 3 and 4, act within the bounds of their limits. 27. Both these respondents were impressed by the fact that all these questions could be raised in the reply to the election petition by the returned candidate. For taking this view, I am supported by 2003 Vol. 3 SCC 524 (supra), as well as by Dahya Lala and others v. Rasul Mahomed and others, AIR 1964 S.C. 1320. In these circumstances, objections raised by Shri Gupta on behalf of respondents not to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is hereby rejected. 28. No other point is urged. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Annexures D & F are hereby quashed and set aside. In these circumstances, objections raised by Shri Gupta on behalf of respondents not to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is hereby rejected. 28. No other point is urged. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Annexures D & F are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is now directed to take up the application filed on behalf of the returned candidate under Section 165 of the Act, and then dispose of the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law and without being in any manner influenced by anything said in this order, which is meant only for disposing of this petition. At the same time, returned candidate is also directed to file his reply/written statement to the election petition on the date fixed by this order before the Authorised Officer i.e. respondent No. 3. It is, however, clarified that said Officer will only proceed further on merits of the case, after disposal of application under Section 165 of the returned candidate. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to take up this case on day to day basis and then deal with it. This direction is pre-emptory keeping in view the date when the election petition was filed more than two and half years ago. Parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before respondent No 3 on 2nd August, 2003. No fresh notice will be issued to the parties by respondent No. 3, since date has been fixed by this Court. -