S.164 HP Panchayati Raj Act | Annexure Forming Integral Part Of Election Petition Must Be Signed, Document Produced As Evidence Exempt: High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday clarified the legal requirements regarding election petitions under Section 164 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The court held that the schedule or annexure accompanying an election petition must be signed and verified by the petitioner, while documents presented as evidence of the petition's averments are exempt from this requirement.A...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday clarified the legal requirements regarding election petitions under Section 164 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The court held that the schedule or annexure accompanying an election petition must be signed and verified by the petitioner, while documents presented as evidence of the petition's averments are exempt from this requirement.
A bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya made these clarifications while hearing a petition pertaining to the Gram Panchayat elections held in Thona in 2001, where the petitioner was elected as the President. Respondent No. 7 had challenged the election by filing an Election Petition under Section 163 of the Act and the Authorized Officer allowed the petition leading to an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner. Since the appeal was also dismissed, this prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The only contention raised by the petitioner was that since the election petition did not comply with the mandate of Section 164(2) of the Act inasmuch as the schedule and the annexure accompanying the petition had not been signed and verified, the same ought to have been dismissed.
The court referred to Sections 164 and 165 of the Act, provisions governing the contents and procedure of an election petition. The court observed that Section 164(2) requires any schedule or annexure attached to the petition to be signed and verified by the petitioner, as it forms an integral part of the election petition. However, if a document is produced merely as evidence of the averments of the petition, there is no requirement for it to be signed and verified.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar (AIR 1968 SC 1079), which interpreted Section 83(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (Pari Materia with Sec 164 of the HP Panchayati Raj Act) and has held,
Similarly, details of the averments too compendious for being included in the election petition may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election petition. The law then requires that even though they are outside the election petition, they must be signed and verified, but such annexures or schedules are then treated as integrated with the election petition and copies of them must be served on the respondent if the requirement regarding service of the election petition is to be wholly complied with. But what we have said here does not apply to documents which are merely evidence in the case but which for reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition are not kept back but produced or filed with the election petitions. They are in no sense an integral part of the averments of the petition but are only evidence of those averments and in proof thereof.
In view of the said expositions, the court held that in case a document is produced as evidence of averments of the election petition, there is no requirement, whatsoever, of these documents being signed and verified.
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the instant petition and dismissed it.
Case Title: Rangila Ram Vs State of HP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 53