Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2411 (HP)

GOVERDHAN DASS v. STATE OF H. P.

2016-11-15

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of appropriate direction in the form of mandamus to respondent No.2, to decide the election petition of the petitioner, at the earliest. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner has filed an election petition No.3 of 2016 under Sections 162, 163 and 164 of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, before respondent No.2 on 19.1.2016. In this election petition, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No.3 alleging that the entire election process was not carried out, as per the procedure during the election for the post of Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Masli, Block Development Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. It is averred that most of the votes, which were cast in favour of the petitioner has been declared invalid by the Returning Officer despite of lodging objection by the counting agent of the petitioner. Even Returning Officer, has refused to recount the votes on the clear protest of the petitioner and counting agent. The Returning Officer does not obtain the signature of the satisfaction of the petitioner and his counting agent and thereby illegally declared the result in favour of respondent No.2. It has been further averred that the petitioner has filed an election petition on 19.1.2016, but the proceedings before respondent No.2 is going on at snail's pace. Respondent No.2 is not inclined to decide the matter at the earliest and as such, respondent No.2 is giving undue advantage to respondent No.3 to hold the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Masli, in an illegal manner. The petition is duly supported with an affidavit. 3. No reply to the petition has been filed nor intended to be filed. 4. Heard. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner only seeks indulgence of this Court to the effect that respondent No.2, should decide his election petition expeditiously. The petition is duly supported with an affidavit. 3. No reply to the petition has been filed nor intended to be filed. 4. Heard. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner only seeks indulgence of this Court to the effect that respondent No.2, should decide his election petition expeditiously. So, this Court finds that as the election to the post of Pradhan, has taken place in December, 2015, the petition was filed on 19th January, 2016 and the tenure of the Pradhan is five year, it will be expedient and in the interest of justice, if respondent No.2, who is authorised officer under the Panchayati Raj Act, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P; where the Gram Panchayat falls, before whom the election petition is pending, is directed to dispose of the election petition of the petitioner expeditiously. 5. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to decide the election petition No.03 of 2016 of the petitioner pending before him, after following the procedure established under law expeditiously, as early as possible. It is expected that respondent No.2, will put in best efforts, so as to dispose of the same within a period of seven months from today.