Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 24.06.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 24 June, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:20180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 3508 of 2025.
Decided on : 24.06.2025
.
Shri Ramesh Chand.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : M/s Onkar Jairath and Piyush
Mehta, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay
Bhardwaj, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) That the Writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to quash the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 & 20.02.2025 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 2
2025:HHC:20180 herein marked as Annexure P-8 & P12 respectively and the result be declared in the election, whereby the petitioner has been declared as successful be .
upheld."
2. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Behdala, District Una, H.P., in the elections held on 19.01.2021. The private respondent was also one of the contesting candidates. Feeling aggrieved by the election of the petitioner, private respondent preferred an Election Petition, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2.
The grounds raised in the Election Petition, inter alia, were that
(a) before the polling was commenced in GSSS Behdala and GPS Behdala Upper, District Una, H.P., signatures of the candidates and their agents were not taken for the sealing of the Ballot Boxes; (b) after the completion of polling, when Ballot Boxes were sealed, no signatures of candidates or their agents were taken by the Assistant Returning Officer, in connivance with the elected candidate; (c) Assistant Returning Officer before the counting commenced, opened the Ballot Boxes in hot haste, in connivance with the elected candidate without ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:20180 showing the seal to the candidates or their agents; (d) Assistant Returning Officer/Counting Officer, in connivance with the elected candidate, counted one bundle of 50 votes of the .
election petitioner in the bundle of elected candidate despite the objection raised by the agent of the election petitioner; (e) Assistant Returning Officer wrongly and illegally, in connivance with the elected candidate, cancelled 47 votes of the election petitioner and counted 23 votes wrongly in favour of the elected candidate; (f) the agent of the election petitioner requested number of times for recounting of the votes, but Assistant Returning Officer refused the request of the agent; and (g) at the time of the casting of the votes, signature of the voters were not taken.
3. The petitioner herein, filed his reply (Annexure P-3) to the Election Petition, in which the allegations were denied.
Initially, in terms of order dated 07.04.2022, Annexure P-5, the Election Petition was dismissed by the Authorized Officer. Said order was challenged by the Election Petitioner. The Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-7, i.e. order dated 23.01.2023, allowed the Appeal, by holding as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 42025:HHC:20180 "5. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record of the lower court in depth. The election petition was instituted on 18.02.2021 .
and dismissed on 07.04.2022. As per Rule 66 of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994:
"66. Account of ballot papers- (1) The Presiding Officer shall at the close of the poll prepare a ballot paper account in Form-
29 and enclose it in a separate cover with the words "Ballot Paper Account"
superscribed thereon.
(2) The account of ballot papers shall be prepared separately for the election of Member, Pradhan, member of Panchyati Samiti and member of Zila Parishad, as the case may be.
3. It has been found that in Form 35 (Ex PW 3/A), the no. of valid votes are 2810, invalid votes are 65, NOTA votes are 3 and total no. of votes come out to be 2878. It has also been found that Ballot Paper Account in Form No. 29 has total sum of 2851 votes, 1 EDC vote and thus, there is a difference of 26 votes between the total number of votes mentioned in Ballot Paper Account ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:20180 in Form No. 29 and the Form No. 35. The discrepancy in Form 35 and Form 29 seems to be correct. In addition, the following discrepancies have been found to exist:
.(i) Form No. 29 for Ward No. 4 and Ward No. 7
cannot be ascertained since ward numbers are not mentioned in two of the copies of Form No. 29;
(ii) prescribed statutory format for Ballot Paper Account in Form No. 29 has not been used to prepare result at the close of the poll in Ward No. 8 and 11;
(iii) number of used or unused votes in ward No. 9 has not been indicated in Ballot Paper Account in Form No. 29;
(iv) Ballot Paper Account in Form No. 29 has been made together for Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Ward Member at the close of poll during election in ward No. 1. 2.3&10.
6. In view of the above discussion after consideration of all the relevant legal provision facts & circumstances and material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not based on correct appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:20180 present appeal against the impugned Order dated 02.04.2022 is allowed and the Impugned Order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Sub Divisional .
Officer (Civil), Una with the direction to decide it afresh after hearing all the parties and considering all the material evidence/ record. File be consigned to General Record Room after due completion and lower Court file be returned. Announced in the open court today the 23 rd January, 2023."
4. Thereafter, the matter was again heard by the Authorized Officer, who thereafter, allowed the Election Petition in the following terms:-
"Thus in evidence the petitioner could not prove his pleadings regarding non sealing of ballot boxes and getting the signatures of candidates/Polling and counting agents. There is also no copy of objection/application submitted for recounting and putting of one bundle 50 votes of petitioner in the votes of R-1, but difference is found regarding account of used ballot paper mentioned in form 35 Ex PW3/A which is 2878 and form 29 prepared ward wise Ex PW3/B to Ex PW3/1 ExPW3/J to ExPW3/M i.e. 252 + 220 + 327 (326+1) + 207 + 207 + 270 + 307 + 430 + 199 + 238 + 195 = 2851 + 1 = 2852. Hence, ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:20180 difference comes to 2878-2852=26 in record produced by Panchayat Inspector in evidence. Ward No. Not mentioned in form No. 29 ward -4 Ex.PW3/E and ward .
No. 7 Ex.PW3/H Prescribed format not used for ballot paper. Account ward No. 8 Ex.PW3/J and 11 Ex.PW3/M. Form No. 29 ward No. ballot bal paper A/c is incomplete though it shows used ballot papers. Form No. 29 for ward No. 1 Ex PW3/B, 2 ExPW3/C, 3 ExPW#/D, 10 ExPW3/L have been prepared together for Pradhan, 2025 Up-
Pradhan, ward Members. I do not think non mentioning of ward No.. Non use of statutory format, preparation of joint ballot paper account can effect the result of election. Only discrepancy in form 35 and forms 29 can effect the result.
So, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. V The issue No. IV has been decided in affirmative as there is discrepancy of polled votes mentioned in form 35 and forms 29 which is a subject matter of checking.
Relief:-
As per conclusion arrived on issue No. IV it has been proved that there is discrepancy in form 35 Ex PW3/A and form 29 of 11 wards Ex PW3/B to Ex PW3/I, ExPW3/J to ExPW3/M and it is necessary to recheck the ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:20180 record, therefore, the petition is hereby allowed conditionally. The record pertaining to the issuance and used votes will be checked to tally the total votes. This .
Court will proceed further to re-count the entire votes, if there would be a considerable difference. The checking of record will be carried out in the presence of both parties on 15.03.2024 at 11.00 AM. The Panchayat Inspector Office of the Block Development Officer, Una, may be asked to produce the concerned election record on that day."
5. Said order was assailed by the present petitioner by way of an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Said Authority initially dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 22.03.2024, Annexure P-10, which was a non-speaking order. The petitioner filed CWP No. 1963 of 2024 before this Court titled Ramesh Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which was disposed of on 27.11.2024, by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench, by setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and by directing the Authority to decide the case afresh, by affording due opportunities to the parties. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.02.2025, Annexure P-12 upheld the order passed by the Authorized Authority in the following terms:-
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 92025:HHC:20180 "9. That in pursuance of aforesaid order dated 23.01.2023 of the learned predecessor of mine the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una cum authorized Officer under .
the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act has heard the case afresh and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to both the parties has held that in evidence the petitioner could not prove his pleadings regarding non sealing of ballot boxes and getting the signatures of candidates/polling and counting agents. There is also no copy of objection/application submitted for recounting and putting of one bundle 50 votes of petitioner in the votes of R-1, but difference is found regarding account of used ballot paper mentioned in form 35 Ex PW3/A which is 2878 and form 29 prepared ward wise Ex PW3/B to Ex PW3/I, Ex PW3/J to Ex PW3/M i.e. 252+220 +327 (326+1) +207 +207 +270 +307 +430+199+238-195-2851+1=2852.
Hence, difference comes to 2878-2852-26 in record produced by Panchayat Inspector in evidence. Ward No. not mentioned in form No. 29 ward-4 Ex PW3/E and Ward No.7 Ex PW3/H prescribed format not used for ballot paper account ward No. 8 Ex PW3/J and 11 Ex PW3/M. Form 29 Ward No.9 for ballot paper A/c is incomplete though it shows used ballot papers. Form No. 29 for ward ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:20180 No.1 Ex PW3/B, 2 Ex PW3/C, 3 Ex PW3/D, 10 Ex PW3/L have been prepared together for Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Ward Members. He has also held that not mentioning of .
ward No., Non use of statutory format, preparation of joint ballot paper account can effect the result of election. Only discrepancy in form 35 and forms 29 can effect the result as such this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner (i.e. Sonia Rana). The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una cum Authorized Officer under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act has allowed the petition of the petitioner i.e. Sonia Rana conditionally with the finding that there is discrepancy in form 35 Ex PW3/A and form 29 of 11 wards Ex PW3/B to Ex PW3/1, ExPW3/J to ExPW3/M and it is necessary to recheck the record. He has ordered that the record pertaining to the issuance and used votes will be checked to tally the total votes and thereafter he will proceed further to re-count the entire votes, if there would be a considerable difference.
10. In view of the above discussion, after consideration of the all the relevant legal provisions, facts & circumstances and material on record, I am of the considered opinion that my learned predecessor and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una cum authorized officer ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:20180 under H.P. Panchayati Raj Act have rightly held that there are discrepancy in Form 35 Ex PW3/A and Form 29 of 11 wards ie. Ex PW3/B, Ex PW3/C, Ex PW3/D, Ex PW3/E, .
Ex PW3/F, Ex PW3/G. Ex PW3/H, Ex PW3/J, Ex PW3/K. Ex PW3/L. and Ex PW3/M, which can only be verified after rechecking the record. Further, the appellant Ramesh Chand had admitted during cross examination before the court of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una cum authorized officer under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act that many votes were cancelled but he could not figure out due to noise in the counting room and results are declared sequentially for Ward Member and then Up- Pradhan & Pradhan and he has expressed no objection for recounting in his own statement. Additionally, the order of the court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una cum authorized officer under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act is not straightway for recounting and the same are conditional order as the recounting will only be done if there is a considerable difference after checking the record pertaining to the issuance and used votes. Hence, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed with the finding that the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una cum authorized officer under ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:20180 the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act is legal and require no interference of this Court. File be consigned to General Record Room after due completion and lower Court file be .
returned. Announced in the open court today the 20th February 2025."
6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the orders passed by the Authorized Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, are per se bad, in the eyes of law. He argued that as the Election Petition was filed on specific grounds, which were not proved by the election petitioner, the Authorities could not have had built a new case for the election petitioner, as has been done in the present case. He submitted that there was no occasion for the Authorities to pass an order of recounting on any account whatsoever once it stood proved on record that no request in writing, as is required under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj At, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was made in writing by the election petitioner or anyone on her behalf before the declaration of the result. He argued that as the order passed by the Authorized ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:20180 Authority, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, is a perverse order and as the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also a perverse order, for the reason that Authorities have .
transgressed the scope of adjudication by deciding the case on a point which was not raised by the election petitioner, this petition deserves to be allowed.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent submitted that after the matter was remanded back by the Deputy Commissioner to the Authorized Officer and as the observations made in that order by the Deputy Commissioner, were not assailed by the present petitioner, the Authorized Officer was bound to decide the Election Petition in accordance thereof and this is exactly what has been done by the Authority. He argued that as it was apparent from the record that there were serious discrepancies committed by the Authorities in the course of the counting of the votes, the orders under challenge cannot be faulted with. He argued that in the light of the order that was passed by the Court, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and, therefore also, there is no need for this Court, in exercise of its power of ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:20180 Judicial Review, to interfere with the findings returned by the Authorities as the same are duly borne out from the record of the case. Accordingly, he prayed that the writ petition be .
dismissed.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State would abide by whatever orders are passed by the Court in the writ petition.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings.
11. The grounds on which the election of the petitioner was assailed by the private respondent herein, have already been spelled out by me in the above part of the judgment.
Another fact which needs to be stated at this stage is that the petitioner, who was declared as elected in the election secured 859 votes, whereas, the private respondent secured 769 votes.
12. The primary challenge to the election of the petitioner by the private respondent was on the ground that one bundle of 50 votes of election petitioner were wrongly counted in the votes of the elected candidate and no recounting was done despite the requests made by the agent of the election ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:20180 petitioner. Another point was that the sealing of the Ballot Boxes etc. was not as per the procedure.
13. In the backdrop of the allegations that were there in .
the Election petition to the election of the present petitioner, when one peruses the order passed by the Authorized Officer dated 13.02.2024, one finds that the Authorized Officer returned the findings that neither the election petitioner was able to prove her pleadings regarding non-sealing of Ballot Boxes or obtaining of the signatures of the candidates/poling and counting agents nor there was on record any objections/applications submitted for recounting of the votes or adding of one bundle of 50 votes or wrongful adding of one bundle of 50 votes of the election petitioner in favour of the elected candidate.
14. Thus, all these contentions which were allegations in the Election Petition, were against the election petitioner by the Authorized Office.
15. However, thereafter, the Authorized Officer went on to hold that in terms of Ex.PW1/A i.e. Form No. 35 as well as Ex.PW3/B to Ex.PW3/I and Ex.PW3/J, which were ward-wise ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:20180 forms of old votes, as there was a difference of 26 votes, on this count, the recounting of entire votes was required.
16. This Court is of the considered view that the act of .
the Authorized Officer of allowing the Election Petition on this ground, to be bad in law. This is for the reason that by issuing these directions, the Authority erred in not appreciating that as it was deciding an Election Petition and as there was no such ground raised in the Election Petition that there was some discrepancy in Form 35 viz-a-viz Form 29, it was not within the domain of the Authorized Officer to have had ventured beyond the pleadings and allow the Election Petition on this point.
17. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Authorized Officer was under obligation to decide this issue in terms of the directions passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner while remanding the matter, also does not impresses this Court for the reason that even learned Deputy Commissioner had no authority to transgress the scope of the adjudication of the Election Petition beyond pleadings.
18. Another contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent that the recounting otherwise could ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:20180 not be faulted for the reason that there was a request made by the agent of the election petitioner to recount the votes, also does not holds any water for the reason that the Authorized .
Authority itself has returned the findings that no written application was made on behalf of the election petitioner for recounting of the votes. This is also borne out from the records.
19. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Rule 79 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, which provides as under:-
"79. Recount of votes.- (1) After the completion of the counting and preparation of result sheet under rule 75, the District Election Officer (Panchayat) or Returning Officer, as the case may be, or any other Officer authorised by him shall announce the particulars of the result sheet.
(2) After such announcement has been made, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or any of his counting agent may apply in writing to the District Election Officer (Panchayat) or Returning Officer, as the case may be, or any other Officer authorised by him in this behalf for a recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the grounds on which he ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 18 2025:HHC:20180 demands such recount:
Provided that if no application for recount is received within reasonable time the result shall be .
declared in accordance with the provisions of clauses (v) and (vi) of rule 75.
(3) On an application for recount under sub-rule(2), the District Election Officer (Panchayat) or Returning Officer, as the case may be, or other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable:
Provided that every decision of the District Election Officer (Panchayat) or Returning Officer, as the case may be, or any other Officer authorised by him shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor.
(4) If the District Election Officer (Panchayat) or Returning Officer, as the case may be, or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, decides under sub-rule (3) to allow an application either in whole or in part, then he shall-
(a) count the ballot papers again in accordance with his decision;
(b) amend the result sheet to the extent necessary ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:20180 after such recount; and
(c) announce the amendment so made by him.
(5) After the total number of votes polled in favour of .
each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (4), the District Election Officer (Panchayat) or Returning Officer, as the case may be, or such other officer authorised by him, shall complete and sign the result sheet and no application for a recount shall be entertained thereafter."
20. It is apparent from a perusal of the said Rule that an application for recounting either by the candidate or election agent has to be "in writing". Admittedly, in this case, no application in writing whatsoever was made for recounting either by the private respondent or her agent. This is also the finding returned by the Authorized Office, which has not been challenged by the private respondent. In the light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that when no request for recounting of the votes was made in writing by the private respondent or her agent, the Authorized Officer had no authority in law to recount, as has been done in the present case, on any count whatsoever.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 202025:HHC:20180
21. In this backdrop, when one peruses the order passed by the Appellate Authority, said Authority has also erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the findings returned by .
the Authorized Officer. The Appellate Authority erred in not appreciating that the Authorized Officer was bound to have had decided the Election Petition strictly on the basis of the pleadings in the Election Petition and as the Authorized Officer had transgressed the scope of the Election Petition by deciding the Election Petition on a ground that was not agitated by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority erred in upholding the said order.
22. There is another aspect of the matter and the same is that whereas the purported discrepancy in Form 35 and Form 29, as per the order passed by the Authorized Officer, was allegedly of 26 votes, the Appellate Authority and the Authorized Officer lost sight of the fact that even if all these votes were cast in favour of the private respondent, then also there would have been no change in the result of the election, as the margin of the votes polled by the petitioner as compared to the private respondent was much in excess of 26 votes.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 212025:HHC:20180
23. Before parting, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2517 of 2023, titled Dharmin Bai Kashyap Vs. Babli Sahu & .
others, decided on 16.08.2023, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
"14. Though a faint attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue that the agent of the petitioner had orally requested the Returning Officer to re-count the votes immediately after the announcement of total number of votes polled by each of the candidates, admittedly no such request was made in writing either by the petitioner or his agent to the Returning Officer as required under Rule 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam 1995.
Even otherwise the petitioner was required to call in question, the election by filing an Election Petition under Section 122 of the said Act, in the manner prescribed under the Rules of 1995 which required the petitioner to seek declarations as envisaged in Rule 6 thereof, and in such a petition, she could have prayed for a relief of re-
counting of votes.
15. There is hardly any need to reiterate the trite position of law that when it comes to the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 22 2025:HHC:20180 on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions[4*]. Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, .
provision for which has to be strictly construed. The petitioner having failed to make any application in writing for re-counting of votes as required under Section 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, and having failed to seek relief of declarations as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995, the Election Petition filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) seeking relief of re-
counting of votes alone was not maintainable."
24. Similarly, this Court in its judgment dated 29.06.2015, in CWP No. 4160 of 2013, titled Smt. Krishna Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Una and others., has been pleased to hold as under:-
"6. Case of the respondent No. 3 before the Authorized Officer was also that she has secured five votes lead over the petitioner and she was declared elected. However, there is no tangible evidence to prove that the respondent No. 3 or other contesting candidates had secured such votes and declared elected as per the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. There is no ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 23 2025:HHC:20180 documentary evidence to prove that the result was earlier prepared and signed by the Returning Officer, as argued by Mr. V.B. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of .
respondent No. 3. The result was never altered. The learned Appellate Authority without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has wrongly set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Authorized Officer, dated 11.07.2011. He has misconstrued the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 made vide Annexures P-5 and P-6. He has not even cared to go through the provisions of Rule-79 of The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. It is reiterated that the respondent No. 3 has not led any evidence whatsoever to prove that she was declared officially elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Khanpur However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has secured 278 votes and the respondent No. 3 has secured 275 votes. There is a detailed procedure, the manner in which the result is to be declared as per Rule-
75(v) & (vi), Rule-79 and Part-III of the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer Hand Book. In the eventuality of no complaint or objections being raised by the candidate or his election agent or counting agent within a reasonable time, the result has to be declared in accordance ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 24 2025:HHC:20180 with the provisions of Rule-75(v) &(vi) of the Rules. The respondent No. 3 has not placed on record even any application submitted for recounting of votes to substantiate .
her claim.
7. This Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and others 2007(1) Shim. LC 392 has held as under:
"4. We are constrained to observe that the reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner are not proper reasons. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered in a mechanical manner. The mere fact that the margin of victory or defeat in an election is low is by itself no ground to order recounting votes. The person who alleges that the result of the election has been prejudicially and materially affected must prima- facie establish and made out a case for recounting of votes. . If the petitioner in an election petition prima-facie shows that the votes have been illegally rejected or the rejection has been made against the rules, then the Court will have the power to order recounting.
5. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner does not appear to have gone ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS 25 2025:HHC:20180 through the evidence at all. It is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that he was not present throughout the counting process. According to him, .
he was moving in and out of the hall where the counting was taking place. The petitioner's own case is that his agent Shri Hem Chand was present throughout the counting process. The petitioner admits in his cross-examination that he had not objected to any of the votes being rejected at the time when the counting was taking place. He however states that after the counting had taken place, he raised objections before the Returning Officer.""
25. In the light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 13.02.2024 and 20.02.2025 are quashed and set aside and the Election Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 24, 2025 (Shivank Thakur) ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:23:18 :::CIS