High Court Rules Out Rectification of Procedural Defects in Panchayat Election Petitions; Dismisses Plea Against Bara Pradhan
SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that statutory procedural requirements for filing an election petition under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, are strictly mandatory and that courts or competent authorities lack the power to grant opportunities to rectify non-compliance.
Dismissing a civil writ petition (CWP No. 18742 of 2026) filed by Kuldeep Chand, Justice Sandeep Sharma upheld the concurrent orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nadaun, and the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, which had rejected a challenge to the election of the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bara in Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur.
The dispute originated when the petitioner, Kuldeep Chand, challenged the election of Sarita Devi (respondent No. 5) to the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bara, by filing an election petition under Section 161(i) read with Section 122(1)(c)(ii) of the HP Panchayati Raj Act before the SDO (Civil)-cum-Authorized Officer, Nadaun.
However, the Authorized Officer dismissed the petition on August 28, 2025, citing multiple statutory violations.
The petitioner subsequently preferred an appeal under Section 181(i) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, which too was dismissed on April 2, 2026, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ashwani Kaundal argued that the lower authorities had adopted a hyper-technical approach.
He contended that the procedural defects pointed out in the election petition were curable in nature and that had the competent court granted an opportunity, the petitioner would have rectified the mistakes rather than facing an outright dismissal under Sections 163 to 165 of the Act and the HP Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that once a statute prescribes a specific manner for filing an election petition and contains no provision permitting the competent authority to allow a party to cure such defects, the lower courts committed no illegality in dismissing the plea.
Upon examining the record alongside Sections 163, 164, and 165 of the Act and Rule 95 of the Election Rules, the Court highlighted several fatal procedural lapses by the petitioner:
* Non-Deposit of Security: The petitioner failed to deposit the mandatory security sum of Rs. 300 in the Government Treasury or Sub-Treasury in the name of the Authorized Officer at the time of presenting the petition, as mandated under Section 163 of the Act read with Rule 95 of the Rules.
Under Section 165, failure to furnish the petition in the prescribed manner mandates outright dismissal.
Unauthorized Presentation: Contrary to Section 163(2) of the Act, the election petition was not presented by the petitioner himself, but by one Suram Chand, who possessed no written authorization from the petitioner to institute the proceedings.
Lack of Verification and Signatures: The petitioner failed to sign and verify the pleadings as well as the accompanying schedules and annexures, violating the mandatory requirements of Sections 164(1)(c) and 164(2) of the Act.
Barred by Limitation: The petition was not presented within the stipulated 30-day period from the publication of the election result, nor was any application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
Holding that strict compliance with these statutory provisions is mandatory and that the Act offers no scope for curing such omissions, the High Court found no infirmity in the orders passed by the SDO (Civil), Nadaun, and the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, and dismissed the writ petition.
The respondent-State was represented by Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol, along with Deputy Advocates General Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu.
#HimachalHighCourt #PanchayatiRajAct #ElectionPetition #Nadaun #LegalNews #Shimla #JudicialAccountability
