Dismissed

Sohan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2010CMPMO/214/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order permitting an election petitioner to cure a verification defect. Relying on a prior Division Bench decision, the Court held such defects are curable under Section 165 of the HP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected with no merit found.

Sohan Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. — Election Law | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No 214/2006.

¶3

Date of Decision: 02.12.2010.

¶4

Sohan Singh …Petitioner Versus.

¶5

Deputy Commissioner & Anr. …Respondents.

¶6

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for Reporting? No.

¶8

For the Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent No1 Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG.

¶9

Deepak Gupta, J . (oral)

¶10

The only question which arise in this petition is whether defect in Election Petition filed under Section 163 read with Section 175 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 are curable and the petitioner can be given time to correct this defect. This question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in

¶11

Devinder Singh Versus Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and others

¶12

LPA No. 149 of 2008, decided on April 7, 2010 has clearly held that the defect of verification is a curable defect and can be cured in terms of Section 165 of the HP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 2. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, there can be no doubt that such a defect is curable. Therefore, the order of the

¶13

Deputy Commissioner permitting the respondent-election petitioner to cure the defect cannot be held to be illegal.

¶14

It has been urged by Mr. Bhushan that the Deputy Commissioner had granted only 15 days’ time to cure the defect and this defect has not been cured. This is not something which this court has to see. It is for the authorized officer that the person before the election petition was filed, to see whether the defect has been cured within the time granted or not. It is further for that officer to decide whether any time can be granted or cannot be granted and if granted should be granted, therefore this question cannot be decided.

¶15

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly rejected.

¶16

Deepak Gupta, Judge

¶17

2^nd December, 2010 (Guleria)

Sohan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Lal Vs Rajinder Prashad

Gulzari Lal Vs Chetu

Krishna Devi Vs State

Partap Singh Vs State

National Insu. Vs Asha Devi

Hp.State Cooperative Bank Vs State