Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 134 (HP)

Rajesh Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj

2018-01-11

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner praying for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and suitable time bound direction may kindly be issued to the respondent No.10, which is the authorized officer to decide the election petition, Annexure P-1, dated 28.1.2016, as provided under Section 167 of the Act, within a reasonable period, as may be deemed just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and justice may be done.” 2. Taking into consideration the nature of relief which stands prayed for by the petitioner and the order which this Court intends to pass, no notices are required to be issued to the private respondents. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that an election petition which was so filed by him under Section 162, 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), i.e., the authorized officer under the Panchayati Raj Act in January, 2016, which was so registered in the office of authorized officer on 2.2.2016 is still pending, though the mandate of the statute is that the officer has to decide such petition within a period of six months from the date of its institution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 167 of the Act (Supra), perusal of which demonstrates that every election petition “shall be decided by the authorized officer within a period of six months from the date of its presentation under Section 163.” Taking into consideration the fact that the word used in Section 163 “shall”, which means it is mandatory for the authority concerned to decide the election petition so filed within six months, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the election petition shall positively be decided by the officer concerned on or before 31.1.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this court that the date so fixed by the authority for hearing of the petition is 23.1.2018. It is further directed that for no reason the authority shall postpone the adjudication of the election petition beyond the date so fixed by this Court. 5. Learned Dy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this court that the date so fixed by the authority for hearing of the petition is 23.1.2018. It is further directed that for no reason the authority shall postpone the adjudication of the election petition beyond the date so fixed by this Court. 5. Learned Dy. Advocate General, who is present in the Court is directed to intimate the order passed by this Court to the authority concerned and if the authority concerned deems it fit, it shall be at all liberty to preppone the hearing of the election petition. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.