HC rejects plea challenging Bara panchayat Pradhan’s election

Shimla, October 29

Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bara in Nadaun tehsil, holding that mandatory legal requirements for filing an election petition under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, could not be relaxed in the absence of a provision permitting correction of defects.

Justice Sandeep Sharma, in a judgment delivered on October 27, upheld the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Authorised Officer, Nadaun, and the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, who had dismissed the election petition and the subsequent appeal filed by Kuldeep Chand.

The petitioner had challenged the election of Sarita Devi as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bara. His election petition was dismissed on August 28, 2025, while the Deputy Commissioner rejected his appeal on April 2, 2026. He subsequently approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the defects in his election petition were curable and that he should have been given an opportunity to rectify them.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court found that the election petition suffered from multiple violations of mandatory statutory requirements. The petitioner had not deposited the prescribed security amount, the petition had been instituted by Suram Chand without written authorisation from the petitioner, and the petition and its annexures had not been duly signed and verified as required under the law.

The court also noted that the election petition had been found to be beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period and that no application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed.

Interpreting Sections 163, 164 and 165 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, along with Rule 95 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, Justice Sharma observed that an election petition must be presented in the manner prescribed by law. Section 163 requires the prescribed security to be furnished, while Section 164 lays down requirements for signing and verification of the petition and its annexures. Section 165 provides for dismissal where the petition is not presented in the prescribed manner or within the stipulated period.

Also Read HP High Court: Panchayat elections cannot be delayed beyond tenure, Disaster Law cannot 9override constitution

Rule 95 specifically requires an election petitioner to deposit Rs 300 as security money in the government treasury or sub-treasury under the appropriate head of account in the name of the authorised officer concerned.

The court observed that neither the Act nor the Rules contained a provision empowering the competent authority to allow a party to rectify the defects identified in the petition. Consequently, the argument that an opportunity should have been granted to cure the defects could not be accepted.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below, the High Court upheld both decisions and dismissed the writ petition along with the pending applications, if any.

About the Author

himachaleditor

Editor

View All Posts