Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranju vs The State Of H.P. And Others on 26 September, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
( 2025:HHC:33722 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 5245 of 2023
Reserved on: 01.09.2025
.
Decided on: 26.09.2025
Ranju ....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of H.P. and others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with M/s
Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Prajwal Busta and Oshin
r Anand Chauhan, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General,
for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No. 5.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s
Ranjna Chauhan, and Atharv Sharma, Advocates,
for respondent No. 6.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"A. That the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla may be quashed and set aside and the order dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohru, may be upheld.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS2 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) B. That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record of the case and they may be burdened with the cost of the petition."
.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order Annexure P/1, dated 21.03.2022, in terms whereof, the Election Petition filed by her against the election of the returned candidate, i.e., respondent No. 6, as Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Sari, Development Block Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. was rejected as well as order Annexure P/2, dated 06.05.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of rejection of the Election Petition was also dismissed.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 contested election for the office of Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Sari, Development Block Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. held on 21.01.2021. In terms of the result declared thereof on the same date, respondent No. 6 was declared as an elected candidate by one vote. The petitioner was stated to have secured 246 votes, whereas, respondent No. 6 secured 247 votes. The petitioner filed an Election Petition, inter alia, on the ground that 13 votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner were wrongly declared as invalid votes, which acted to the prejudice of the petitioner and further 7 votes which were bound to be declared as invalid, were not done so.
4. To cut the controversy short, as already observed by me hereinabove, feeling aggrieved by the declaration of respondent No. 6 as an ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 3 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) elected candidate, the petitioner filed the Election Petition, which was dismissed and so was the fate of the appeal.
.
5. When this case was heard on 30.05.2025, in the light of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard for some time. Taking into consideration the controversy involved in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, the voles casted in the election are directed to be produced by the Office of the learned Advocate General, before the Court, so that re-counting thereof can be ordered under the supervision of the Court, which of course will be without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties.
As there is no objection to the said observation made by the Court, accordingly, the case is ordered to be listed on 20.06.2025, on which date the votes casted in d election in issue shall be produced before the Court in sealed covered.
Original record of the Election petition be a produced by the Office of learned Advocate General on next date of hearing."
6. Thereafter, on 28.07.2025, the following order was passed:-
"....Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the requisite ballots have been produced before the Court, let some responsible officer of the Registry count the same and furnish the result in a ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 4 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) sealed cover to the Court. He further submits that it would in the interest of justice, in case, needful is done in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties.
.
In light of the request so made, it is ordered that Mr. Davinder Chopra (Registrar Accounts of the Registry), is called upon to count the votes in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties and submit his report in a sealed cover to the Court on the next date of hearing. The record be produced before the Officer on 30.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter, the same be gone through the by the officer, in the presence of the parties as per his convenience. Officer/official, who has brought the record, shall also be associated in the counting.
List on 11.08.2025."
7. The report of the Registrar (Accounts), who undertook the task of counting of the votes in terms of the directions of this Court is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Submitted that pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, today the 30th July, 2025 at about 11.00 a.m. Sh. Bhag Singh, Pamta, Panchayat Inspector and Sh. Rewat Ram, Peon, O/o Block Development Officer has produced record pertaining to election of Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Sari, Tehsil Jubal (gunny bag) alongwith letter No.CB/Court Case/2023-1704 dated 29.07.2025 of Block Development Officer, Jubal. Only relevant envelopes were opened in presence of the aforesaid officials and learned counsel for the parties at about 11.20 a.m. ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 5 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) It is submitted that in pursuance to the directions of the Block Development Officer in the aforesaid letter dated 29.07.2025 (enclosed with this .
report), Sh. Rohit Sauhata, the then ARO, Panchayat Election has also put in appearance but he has not been associated as there is no direction of the Hon'ble Court to associate him in the process of counting.
It is further submitted that two envelopes containing used ballot papers were opened, one by one, in order to count the votes, in presence of Departmental Officials and learned counsel for the parties.
At the outset, it is submitted that during the process of counting the votes, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 6, objected to some of the ballot papers to which I have requested them that the Hon'ble Court has only directed the undersigned to count the votes. As such, the objected votes are shown separately.
First of all, used ballot papers i.e. votes cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta, respondent No. 6 having sign of "Lock and Key", were counted. The detail of which are as under:-
Ms. Anu Votes Remarks
Rangta
Sign-
Lock &
Key
Non- 243
objected
votes
Objected 3 One having
votes clear double
stamp
One having
impression of
double stamp
Objected as
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS
6 ( 2025:HHC:33722 )
blot is there on
the ballot
paper
Total 246
votes
.
Similarly, used ballot papers i.e. votes cast in favour of Ms. Ranju, petitioner having sign of "Bucket"
have been counted. The details of which are as under:-
Ms. Ranju Votes Remarks
Sign-Bucket
Non-objected 245
votes
Objected votes 1 Having no stamp but
ink is spread on the
name and sign
Total votes 246
The votes cast in favour of other
candidates were also counted, in the presence of all. The votes are correct, as per Form-34. However, during counting, it has been found that in the bunch of votes of Ms. Arti, there is one use ballot paper having two stamps, which has also been kept in separate sealed envelope.
Envelope containing 13 invalid votes were also counted, which are found to be correct in the presence of learned counsel. It is submitted that at one point of time, both the counsel(s) for the petitioner and respondent No.6 have objected to two invalid votes, but later on they have consensus that all the 13 votes were rightly invalidated.
The envelope containing two ballot papers of "NOTA" were also counted and found to be correct.
As directed, all the ballot papers i.e. votes were counted with the assistance of Departmental Officials.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS7 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) Small five sealed envelopes, i.e. (i) 13 invalid votes, (ii) 2 "NOTA" votes, (iii) 3 votes purported to be cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta and objected by .
learned counsel for Ms. Ranju, (iv) 1 vote purported to be cast in favour of Ms. Ranju and objected by learned counsel for Ms. Anu Rangta; and (v) 1 invalid vote found in the bunch of ballot papers of Ms. Arti is kept in one separate envelope.
Envelope containing 243 used ballot papers (votes) in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta, respondent No.6 were kept in separate sealed envelope.
Envelope containing 245 used ballot papers (votes) in favour of Ms. Ranju, petitioner were kept in separate another sealed envelope.
Thus, the total votes are 944, which are correct, as per the description given in Form-34. Photocopy of the said Form is also placed on the top of the envelope having five small sealed envelopes for ready reference.
The details of total votes cast are as under:-
Sr. Name of Votes Objected Total votes No. candidate cast to
1. Ms. Anu 243 3 246 Rangta 2. Ms. 32 - 32 Anjana Chauhan 3. Ms. Arti 97 1 98 4. Ms. 104 - 104 Kavita 5. Ms. 60 - 60 Pooja Kumari 6. Ms. 245 1 246 Ranju 7. Ms. 80 - 80 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS
8 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) Vajita 8. Ms. 63 - 63 Varinda Devi Total 924 5 929 .
NOTA - - 2 Invalid - - 13 Votes Grand - - 944 total Record which has been opened in
presence of all concerned has been re-sealed in presence of the Departmental Officials.
To sum up, it is submitted that total votes as per record are counted and found to be correct, as per the description given in Form-34. However, the learned counsel for the parties have objected to the used ballot papers cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta, respondent No. 6 and Mr. Ranju, petitioner, which were kept in separate envelopes for favour of kind perusal, please. Record retained for placing before the Hon'ble Court."
8. On 11.08.2025, the following order was passed:-
"....Report of the Registrar (Accounts) is taken on record. Copy thereof be provided to learned Counsel for the parties today itself.
As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, list for consideration on 18.08.2025. Record be retained in the meanwhile.
In light of the order passed on 30.05.2025, which was a consent order, none of the parties shall be permitted to file objections to the report submitted by the Registrar (Accounts) as this, which is only a fact report."::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS
9 ( 2025:HHC:33722 )
9. When this case was listed on 19.08.2025, the following order was passed:-
.
"....I have heard contentions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6.
Their arguments on the issues are heard.
Learned Advocate General assisted the Court on the issue as to what should be done with regard to the four notices which find mentioned in the report of the Officer who was called upon by the Court to count the votes. Learned Advocate General suggested that it would be in the interest of justice in case as far as these four votes are concerned the same are opened and perused as per procedure prescribed to determine the validity thereof and in case they are found to be valid, then in whose favour those votes stand casted.
The Court agrees with the suggestion so made by learned Advocate General and in this backdrop, the matter is ordered to be listed on 21.08.2025, for this limited purpose. Tehsildar, Urban, Shimla, is called upon to remain present in the Court just to assist the Court."
10. Thereafter, on 22.08.2025, the following order was passed:-
"In compliance to the directions passed by the Court, Shri Apoorv Sharma, Tehsildar (Urban), Shimla is present in person in the Court, to assist the Court in order to ascertain the validity of the Ballot Papers.
The Court opened envelope containing one vote of Ms. Ranju, which was objected to by the ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 10 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) learned counsel for the opposite side. Tehsildar concerned stated that the Ballot Paper does not contain mark with the instrument supplied, therefore, .
it is an invalid vote.
Thereafter, the envelope of other candidate, namely Ms. Arti was also opened.
Tehsildar stated that vote therein was an invalid vote, as it contains mark of instrument against the name of Ms. Arti as well as Ranju, which makes it as an invalid vote. Tehsildar further stated that both appear to be hard marks, therefore, it is an invalid vote.
r Thereafter, envelope containing votes relating to Ms. Anu Rangta was opened. The first Ballot containing Serial No. 3755009, as per Tehsildar, was an invalid vote, as it was containing mark of the instrument against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta as well as against the column of NOTA.
Thereafter, Ballot Paper containing Serial No. 3753592 was checked. Tehsildar stated that there is a smudge mark against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta and there is no mark anywhere else, meaning thereby that this is a valid vote cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta.
Tehsildar further stated that as far as Serial No. 3756288 is concerned, there is a mark against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta and there is also a smudge mark against Ms. Anjana Chauhan, but it is not apparent as to how this smudge mark is there on the vote.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS11 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) On the request of learned counsel for the parties, list for consideration on 26th August, 2025.
.
11. The matter was thereafter heard and the judgment was reserved on 01.09.2025.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that as the parties had agreed for re-counting of the votes before this Court and as now re-counting thereof has been done, the result thereof be declared on the basis of the said re-counting.
13. Learned Senior Counsel further stated that as per report of the learned Registrar (Accounts), total votes cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta were 243, qua which there was no dispute and the total votes cast in favour of Ms. Ranju qua which there was no dispute were 245. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there were 3 votes claimed by Ms. Anu Rangta, which were objected to and similarly, 1 vote claimed by Ms. Ranju was objected to. He referred to the order passed by this Court on 22nd August, 2025 and submitted that the envelope containing 1 vote, claimed by Ms. Ranju was stated by Tehsildar to be an invalid vote. Therefore, the total votes cast in favour of Ms. Ranju remained only 245. He further submitted that as far as 3 votes claimed by Ms. Anu Rangta were concerned, the first Ballot containing Serial No. 3755009 was an invalid vote, as it was containing mark of instrument against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta as well as in the Column of NOTA. The Ballot Paper containing Serial No. 3753592 was stated to be a valid vote cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta by Tehsildar, ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 12 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) as there was no mark anywhere else except the name of Ms. Anu Rangta.
Therefore, this could also be construed to be a valid vote. As far as Ballot .
Paper containing Serial No. 3756288 is concerned, as there was a mark against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta and also a smudge mark against Ms. Anjana Chauhan, the same is to be considered to be an invalid vote.
14. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent argued that firstly as there was no plea taken by the petitioner herein during the course of counting of the votes for having the votes re-
counted, therefore, this entire exercise undertaken by the Court was unwarranted, because there was no occasion for the Court to order the re-
counting of the votes. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Election Law being both conservative and technical, this Court could not have undertaken the exercise of re-counting of votes, as was done through Registrar (Accounts) and, in this view of the matter, he submitted that as the impugned orders under challenge by way this writ petition do not suffer from any infirmity, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
15. With regard to the 4 votes in issue, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Ballot Paper containing Serial No. 3756288 contained a clear mark of vote being cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta and, therefore, this vote otherwise should have construed to have been cast in favour of Ms. Anu Ranga.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS13 ( 2025:HHC:33722 )
16. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the orders under challenge as well as other .
documents on record.
17. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to make an observation that as far as re-counting of the votes is concerned, the same was ordered by this Court in light of the consent given to the same by learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the private respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that now the private respondent cannot be allowed to take the plea that re-counting of the votes cannot be undertaken by the Court. Private respondent is estopped from raising this plea. Here, this Court would like to refer to the judgment dated August 11, 2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, Civil Appeal No. 10487 of 2025, in which, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. The controversy pertains to the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu village, District Panipat, Haryana. Election was held on 02.11.2022, and respondent No.1 was declared to have been elected. There arose a controversy as to whether respondent No.1 was rightly declared elected or if the appellant ought to have been declared as the returned candidate. The appellant, thereafter, filed an Election Petition challenging the result of the election. Respondent No.1 initially raised a preliminary objection ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 14 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) of limitation, which was turned down up to this Court, and the Election Tribunal was directed to take up the petition every week and decide the same within four .
months.
3. Thereafter, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)- cum-Election Tribunal, Panipat, vide a self-
speaking judgment dated 22.04.2025, held that in view of the findings returned on Issue Nos.2 to 6 by it, a case of recounting of votes of Booth No.69 was made out. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer was directed to re-count the votes in Booth No.69 on 07.05.2025.
4. The above-stated order of the Election Tribunal has been set aside by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2025.
5. When the instant matter came up for hearing before this Court on 31.07.2025, the following order was passed:
"1. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at a considerable length and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Deputy Commissioner and the District Election Officer, Panipat, Haryana is directed to produce all the EVMs before the Registrar of this Court, to be nominated by the Secretary General, at 10 a.m. on 06.08.2025. The nominated Registrar shall recount the votes, not only of the disputed booth but of all the booths. The recounting shall be duly videographed. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 or their authorized agents shall remain present at the time of recounting. The assisting counsel for the parties before us shall also remain present. The recount result shall be duly signed by the learned Registrar, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 or their authorized representative as well as the learned assisting counsel.
2. The recounting shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 15 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) parties and subject to the objections that may be filed by the parties.
3. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner and the District Election Officer .
Panipat, Haryana for necessary compliance.
4. Post this matter on 11.08.2025 at 2 p.m. before this Bench."
6. In deference thereto, learned Secretary General nominated Ms. Kaveri, who is presently posted as OSD (Registrar) to comply with the above order. The OSD (Registrar), with the logistic assistance provided by the Secretary General of this Court, recounted the votes of all the Booths (65 to 70) and has submitted a report dated 06.08.2025 based thereupon. The recounting of votes from each Booth has been appended at Flag `C' and compilation thereof is at flag `D' of the report. The translated copy of the disputed form No.19 (re:
declaration of result from Booth No.69) has also been produced at page No.157 of the Report. Finally, learned OSD (Registrar) has compiled the revised result, which reads as follows:-
S. No. Name of candidate as per Consolidate Ballot Paper votes
1. Kuldeep Singh 1000 2. Jaswant Singh 27 3. Naveen Kumar 491 4. Mahavir 237
5. Mohit Kumar 1051 6. Samer 125 7. Sunil Kumar 815 8. NOTA 21 Total 3767
7. Ordinarily, the recounting of votes having been done by a Senior Judicial Officer, who is currently serving as an OSD (Registrar) in this Court, would have been the end of the matter and the proceedings could be ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 16 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) closed by declaring the appellant as the elected candidate. However, Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, submits that in addition to .
the issue of recount, some other issues have also been raised before the Election Tribunal, where the evidence is complete and the case is ripe for final arguments. 8.
On the other hand, Ms. Liz Mathew, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that all other issues have, in fact, been adjudicated by the Election Tribunal on 22.04.2025 and the only one left for adjudication was pertaining to declaration of the election result after recounting of votes. However, that judgment of the Election Tribunal has been set aside by the High Court, giving rise to the instant appeal.
9. Since, the recounting of votes has now been completed pursuant to our order dated 31.07.2025, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot sustain and the same is, accordingly, set aside.
10. Similarly, there being prima facie no reason to doubt the Report submitted by the OSD (Registrar) of this Court, especially when the entire recounting has been duly videographed and its result is signed by the representatives of the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant deserves to be declared as the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu Village, District Panipat, Haryana in the election held on 22.11.2022. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer, Panipat is, accordingly, directed to issue a Notification in this regard within two days declaring the appellant as the elected Sarpanch of the abovementioned Gram Panchayat. The appellant shall be entitled to assume the said office forthwith and perform his duties.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS17 ( 2025:HHC:33722 )
11. However, in the interest of justice, we allow the parties to agitate the issues, if any, left to be adjudicated. The Election Tribunal may, accordingly, accord them an .
opportunity of being heard and deliver the final judgment.
The Election Tribunal, however, shall accept the Report of the OSD (Registrar) of this Court as the final and conclusive report so far as the result of recounting of votes is concerned. The Report submitted by the OSD (Registrar) of this Court shall be re-sealed and sent to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Election Tribunal, Panipat to make it a part of the record of the Election Petition.
12. Similarly, the EVMs or any other record, which were summoned, shall also be returned to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Panipat.
13. The direction issued hereinabove to declare the appellant as an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu, District Panipat shall, however, be subject to the final judgment that may be passed by the Election Tribunal.
14. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
15. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
16. Copy of the order be given dasti."
Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar's case (supra), referred to hereinabove, the Court can undertake the process of re-counting of the votes, as was done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case and further, as far as re-counting done by this Court is concerned, the same was with the consent of the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS18 ( 2025:HHC:33722 )
18. Now, I will refer to the report of learned Registrar (Accounts), who undertook the re-counting process. A perusal of his report .
suggests that during the process of counting of the votes, in all, 243 votes, i.e., non-objected votes were found to have been cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta, whose symbol was "Lock and Key". 3 votes were objected to, as far as this candidate is concerned. Similarly, as far as the other candidate Ms. Ranju is concerned, whose election symbol was "Bucket", 245 votes were non-objected votes and 1 vote was objected. This took the tally of both Ms. Anu Rangta and Ms. Ranju to 246 votes each, including the objected to votes.
19. Now, as far as 1 objected vote of Ms. Ranju is concerned, who is the petitioner before this Court, this vote has been found to be an invalid vote, as it did not contain mark with the instrument supplied.
Therefore, as far as Ms. Ranju is concerned, her tally of vote cast comes to 245 votes. As far as Ms. Anu Rangta is concerned, Ballot Paper containing Serial No.3755009 was stated to be an invalid vote by Tehsildar, as it was containing the mark of instrument both against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta as well as against the Column of NOTA. Therefore, this vote is held to be an invalid vote. Similarly, the Ballot Paper containing Serial No. 3753592 was checked and as according to Tehsildar, there was a smudge mark against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta and there was no other mark anywhere else, this vote is held to be a valid vote cast in favour of Ms. Anu Rangta. Now, as far as the Ballot Paper containing Serial No. 3756288 is concerned, one ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS 19 ( 2025:HHC:33722 ) finds that it has two marks, one against the name of Mr. Anu Rangta and another against the name of Ms. Anjana Chauhan. This Court has folded the .
Ballot Paper both vertically and horizontally to see the possibility of mark against the name of Ms. Anjana Chauhan, being a smudge mark of the mark against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta, but the same is not possible. A vertical fold of the Ballot Paper demonstrates that the smudge mark of the actual mark, if any, against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta should have been on the Column where the name of the candidate was given. Similarly, horizontal fold of the Ballot Paper would have resulted in the smudge mark being against the Column of NOTA or somewhere next to it. Therefore, as by no strength of imagination it can be said that the mark against the name of candidate Anjana Chauhan is a smudge mark of the mark against the name of Ms. Anu Rangta, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the vote vide Ballot Paper containing Serial No. 3756288 is an invalid vote, as it has mark against the names of two candidates, namely, Ms. Anu Rangta and Ms. Anjana Chauhan. Held accordingly. The votes, after perusal by the Court, have been resealed and ordered to be returned back to the learned Additional Advocate General against receipt.
20. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, now the position as it emerges, is that the votes of petitioner-Ms. Ranju remain 245, whereas, the votes of Ms. Anu Rangta are enhanced from 243 to 244. As out of the 3 objected votes, 1 vote has been found to be validily cast in her favour.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS20 ( 2025:HHC:33722 )
21. Thus, the result of the election as it now turns out to be is that Ms. Anu Rangta polled 244 votes and Ms. Ranju polled 245 votes. In .
the light of the fact that there is a difference of 1 vote between the petitioner and respondent No. 6, who earlier was declared as a winning candidate, this petition is allowed. Orders under challenge, i.e., Annexure P/1, dated 21.03.2022, passed by Authorized Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru, Shimla, H.P. and Annexure P/2, dated 06.05.2023, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla are set aside and so is the election result; and petitioner-Ms. Ranju is declared as the winning candidate against the office of Pradhan. Accordingly, a direction is hereby issued to the Authority to declare the petitioner elected to the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sari, Development Block Jubbal-Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 26, 2025 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:44:36 :::CIS