Proper Verification Of Vote Counting Procedure Essential In Elections: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when questions arise regarding the proper conduct of vote counting procedures, it is essential to examine the relevant records to determine whether counting was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel: “it would have been appropriate for the Authorised Officer to have had scrutinized the entire record to ascertain as to whether counting of the votes was actually carried out in terms of the provisions prescribed in the HP Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, or not.”

Background Facts:

The petitioner, Smt. Anita and the private respondent contested the election for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Saloh, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Pursuant to which Smt. Anita was declared elected and appointed as Pradhan.

The private respondent challenged the result by filing an election petition before the Authorized officer (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), alleging that eight excess votes had been erroneously counted in favour of the petitioner, which affected the election outcome.

However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the Petition on the ground that the respondent did not submit any no formal application for recounting of votes. It held that the allegation pertained to eight excess votes, however there was no clarity regarding the votes being actually casted in favor of the petitioner or any other candidate.

Aggrieved by this, the private respondent filed approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 181 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. On 17.04.2023, the Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh findings.

Thereafter, the petitioner, Smt. Anita filed a second appeal under Section 181(ii) of the Panchayati Raj Act before the Divisional Commissioner. However the appeal was dismissed on 01.12.2023.

Challenging both the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 17.04.2023 and the Divisional Commissioner's order dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.

Contentions:

It was contended by the respondent, that the Panchayati Raj Act does not provide provision for a second appeal, and hence, the petitioner's challenge before the Divisional Commissioner was not maintainable.

Findings:

The Court remarked that as per Section 181 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the aggrieved parties can file appeals according to the hierarchy given below:

• Where the Authorized Officer is the Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner.
• Where the Authorized Officer is the Deputy Commissioner, an appeal lies to the Divisional Commissioner.
• Where the Authorized Officer is the Divisional Commissioner, the appeal lies to the Financial Commissioner.

The Court further noted that Section 181 must be read with Section 161 of the Act, which authorizes certain officers to hear election petitions. Accordingly, while an appeal from an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner, no further appeal lies under Section 181 against the Deputy Commissioner's decision.  Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner's order, setting aside the appeal of the petitioner, was held to be without jurisdiction and was accordingly declared ineffective.

The Court then turned to examine the correctness of the Deputy Commissioner's order which allowed appeal of the Respondent. It noted that the Deputy Commissioner had rightly referred to relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.

It observed that the Deputy Commissioner in its order held that the question of whether the vote counting procedure had been properly followed could not be answered without examining the statutory documents. The Authorized Officer (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) had failed to do so, and this omission was rightly identified as a defect in the original adjudication.

The Court remarked as per the nature of dispute, it was the duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate to go through the records to determine if the vote counting had been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules or not. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner's order as it remanded the matter back for counting the votes again.

Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the election petition to be decided afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the prescribed provisions of the Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.

Case Name: Smt. Anita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 1082 of 2024

Date of Decision: 19.05.2025

For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Mr. Prem Prakash Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

Click Here To Read/Download Order