Sh. Amrit Lal vs State of H.P. and others

Justice Surinder Singh, J.—The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 1410/2011 decided on 29.9.2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

Brief facts, can be stated thus 4th respondent Lala Ram filed an election petition calling in question the election of the appellant as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat by presenting the petition before the Authorized Officer (SDO) (C), Gohar, precisely on the ground that the appellant had applied for regularization of the encroached Government land encroached upon by him vide an application which is a disqualification to hold the office of Panchayat. To prove his case, 4th respondent filed a list of witnesses and examined Patwari Halqua on 28.9.2010; but he was not in possession of the original application of the appellant, but however, produced the register which reflecting its entry. Therefore, the Authorized Officer vide order dated 28.9.2010, ordered to deposit process-fee and to file a list of witnesses and adjourned the case for 12.10.2010, which order was impugned by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 23.2.2011 Annexure P3, after perusing the record dismissed the appeal as he did not find anything wrong therein.

The appellant challenged the aforesaid orders in writ petition. The learned Single Judge observed that it was not a case of additional evidence. The Authorized Officer was within his powers to direct 4th respondent to file list of witnesses along with process-fee. It was also observed that this Court had directed the Authorized Officer to decide the petition within two months vide order dated 23.2.2011, thus finding no illegality and perversity in the orders passed by the Authorized Officer and also the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the petition being without any merit with cost of Rs. 5000/-. Now said judgment is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal by the appellant.

Shri G.R. Palsara, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent had examined Patwari and 4th respondent had already submitted the list of witnesses, so long as the list is not exhausted the Authorized Officer was not competent to order to file the list afresh; thus by doing so, he traveled beyond his jurisdiction and the Deputy Commissioner also wrongly dismissed his appeal ignoring the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In fact, the Authorized Officer has to decide the election petition as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily within six months from the date of its presentation as provided under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, in short �he Act� and even there was a time bound direction by this Court to decide the matter. There is also no dispute that the provision of the CPC are applicable to the election petition but Section 169 of the Act deals with the powers of authorized Officer which empowers him to decide the election petition and he is competent to summon and even examine suo-motu any person whose attendance appears him to be material in the case. Thus, against aforesaid facts, the Authorized Officer came to a rightful conclusion and passed the order impugned to reach at a logical end which was correctly upheld in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Otherwise also, the appellant will have its own turn to rebut the evidence led by the 4th respondent.

Therefore, for the afore-stated position, we see no reason to up-set the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) as we find that the appellant has made every effort to scuttle the expeditious disposal of the petition by resorting to frivolous appeal after appeal, including the filing of writ petition and also the present appeal just to linger on the matter, encroaching upon the public time and money. The matter stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.