Non-Satisfaction with the Result of the Election, Require to Appeal at Respective Authorities directed in Sections 162 & 175 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994: High Court of Shimla
When a Rule or a set of Rules specifically permits or enables a person to approach an appropriate Authority to redress his or her grievances, he or she should avail that remedy under the appropriate provisions of law. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Rekha Thakur v. State of H.P. & others [CWP No. 656 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy and The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner had made a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities to recount the polled votes for the post of Member, Zila Prishad, Ward No. 16, Sanghnei, District Una, H.P. Except this, the petitioner had not made any other prayer.Petitioner submits that she had contested election for the post of Member, Zila Prishad, Ward No. 16, Sanghnei, District Una, H.P. The result of the said election was declared on 23.01.2021 and one Sangeeta Devi was declared winner for the said post. She further submits that during the counting process, the proper procedure was ignored by the polling party just to give undue advantage to the counter part of the petitioner, i.e. aforesaid Sangeeta Devi. She also summited that at about 12.45 a.m. on the same day, she had made written request to respondents No. 3 & 4 for recounting of the votes vide respectively, but the respondents did not take any steps for recounting the votes. Hence, the petitioner had preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Authorities to recount the polled votes for the post of Member of Zila Prishad, Ward No. 16, Sanghnei, District Una, H.P
The court opinioned that, “Even if we accept the prayer of the petitioner made in the writ petition, no decision can be made against a person, who is not a party to the writ petition. If a person is affected by an order of the Court, he should have been made party to the lis. The nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, requires consideration by the Statutory Authorities. The same also requires recording of evidence and marking of documents etc., which is not permissible before this Court”
The writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble court stating that, “from the perusal of Annexures P-4 & P-5, it appears that the petitioner has not mentioned specific grounds which could influence the Authorities concerned to recount votes. Thus, it is made clear that if a representation for recounting the votes is made by the petitioner to the respondent-Authorities concerned, within a reasonable time, the specific grounds for recounting votes along with supporting documents should be mentioned therein.”