JUDGMENT : Kurian Joseph, J. Whether an authorised officer to hear an election petition is authorised under law to recount the votes and declare that another person who has secured the majority of votes has been elected, is the moot question arising for consideration in this case. 2. Sections 174, 175 and 175(A) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, provide for procedure. The provisions read as follows:- "174. Decision of the authorised officer.- (1) Where an election petition has not been dismissed under section 165, the authorised officer shall inquire into the election petition and at the conclusion of the inquiry shall make an order- (a) dismissing the election petition; or [(b) declaring the election of all or any of the elected persons to be void; or] [(c) declaring the election of all or any of the elected persons to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected.] (2) At the time of marking an order under sub-section (1) the authorised officer shall also make an order,- (a) where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt practise having been committed at the election, recording- (i) a finding whether any corrupt practise has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election and the nature of that corrupt practise; and (ii) the name of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practise and the nature of that practise; and (b) fixing the total amount of costs payable, and specifying the persons by and to whom costs shall be paid: Provided that a person who is not a party to the petition shall not be named in the order under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) unless- (i) he has been given notice to appear before the authorised officer and to show cause why he should not be so named; and (ii) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he has been given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness, who has already been examined by the authorised officer and has given evidence against him, of calling evidence in his defence and of being heard. 175. 175. [Grounds for declaring election to be void].- (1) If the authorised officer is of the opinion- (a) that on the date of his election the elected person was not qualified, or was disqualified to be elected under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practise has been committed by the elected person or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the elected person or his agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected, or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the elected person, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this act or of any rule made under this Act, the authorised officer shall [declare the election of the elected persons to be void.] [(2) Subject to the provisions of section 175-A, when an election of an elected person has been declared to be void under sub-section (1), a fresh election shall be held under the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.] [175-A. Grounds for which a candidate other than the elected person may be declared to have been elected.- If any person who has lodged a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the elected person, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the authorised officer is of opinion,- (a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of valid votes; or (b) that but for the votes obtained by the elected person by corrupt practices, the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the authorised officer shall after declaring the election of the elected person to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected." 3. The procedure prescribed under the Act, shows that an authorised officer, is authorised to dismiss the election petition or declare the election of all or any of the selected persons to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. The procedure prescribed under the Act, shows that an authorised officer, is authorised to dismiss the election petition or declare the election of all or any of the selected persons to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. Under section 175 (1) (d) improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote, which is void, is one of the grounds for declaring the election to be void, so far as the elected person is concerned. On all the grounds, under Section 175(i) also, the authorised officer is empowered to declare the election of the elected person to be void. The contentions of the petitioner is that the authorised officer is only empowered to set aside the election and leave the matter there and his only power is order for fresh election. Strong reliance has been placed under Section 175 (2), which provides that when an election of an elected person has been declared to be void under Section 175 (1), a fresh election is to be held. It is to be seen that operation of the provisions as above under Section 175 (2), is subject to the provisions of Section 175 (A). Section 175(A) specifically provides that once an election of an elected person is declared void, on entering a finding that the petitioner or any other candidate has actually received majority of valid votes, the authorised officer is bound to declare the election of the elected person to be void and further declare that the petitioner or such other candidate, who has secured the majority of votes, to have been duly elected. 4. In the instant case, the authorised officer has done only what is authorised under law by ordering the recounting, in the presence of both the parties for finding out as to who has secured the majority of votes. That is in the true spirit of democratic principles and statutory provisions. A person, who has secured the majority of votes has to be the person, who is to be declared elected. No technicality, procedural or otherwise should stand in the way of upholding the democratic principles by the Election Tribunal, in the instant case, the authorised officer. In the recounting, the petitioner has participated. A person, who has secured the majority of votes has to be the person, who is to be declared elected. No technicality, procedural or otherwise should stand in the way of upholding the democratic principles by the Election Tribunal, in the instant case, the authorised officer. In the recounting, the petitioner has participated. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is not the person who has secured the majority of votes, but the private respondent. Therefore, it is the private respondent, who has to be the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kuthari, as declared by the authorised officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. 6. We record our appreciation on the assistance rendered by the Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate as Amicus Curiae and Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General.