Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, C.J., JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.
Smt. Anu Rangta - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
LPA No.697 of 2025
Decided On : 29-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan and Ms. Prajwal Busta, Advocates.

The court affirmed that recounting of votes is justified when evidence suggests irregularities in the election process, validating the necessity of thorough examination of all ballots.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 - Election dispute - Letters Patent Appeal against judgment setting aside elected candidate's declaration based on recounting of votes - Single Judge deemed recount necessary due to irregularities in ballot paper validation. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, 38)

(B) Election Law - Validity of votes - Court's authority to recount and scrutiny of votes affirmed, stating that all ballots can be examined when evidence suggests irregularities in election count. (Para 38)

Facts of the case:
Candidate Anu Rangta contested and was declared elected as Pradhan with 243 votes, later contested by Ranju, who had received 245 votes, resulting in re-examination due to disputes over ballot validity. (Para 3)

Findings of Court:
Court upheld recount process initiated by Single Judge based on sufficient evidence, stating earlier ballots had been improperly invalidated and election process followed was sporadic. (Paras 24, 39)

Issues: The court evaluated the legitimacy of the recount, allegations of wrongful stamping, and procedural adherence by returning officers.

Ratio Decidendi: Court confirmed the necessity of recounts when there's evidence of miscounting or procedural errors, rejecting the argument against recounting based on lack of written applications for the recount of ballots. (Paras 24, 39)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. final judgment and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 40)

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5245 of 2023 titled Ranju Vs. The State of H.P. and others, decided on 26.09.2025, filed by the elected candidate whose election has been set aside by recounting of the votes and holding that there was a difference of one vote between the present appellant, who was wrongly declared as a winning candidate. Resultantly, learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh dated 21.03.2022 and the order dated 06.05.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in appeal.

2. The reasons for interference by the learned Single Judge on the ground which he exercised the jurisdiction after taking a recount of the votes was that there was a consent as such given regarding the recounting of the votes by the counsel(s) and therefore, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10487 of 2025 titled Mohit Kumar Vs. Kuldeep Singh and Others, decided on 11.08.2025, it has been held that the Court could undertake the process of recounting.

3. Accordingly, since the report of the learned Registrar Accounts for the recounting process was taken into consideration whereby it was found that the present appellant-Anu Rangta who had stood for the elections of Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Sari Development Block Jubbal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh under the symbol of “Lock and Key” and had recieved 243 non-objected votes, whereas, three votes were being objected too.

4. In contrast the election petitioner-Ms. Ranju who had contested under the election symbol of “Bucket”, had 245 votes cast in her favour and there was one objected vote and therefore both the candidates had 246 votes each, including the objected votes. One of the objected votes did not contain the mark of the instrument supplied and it was deemed to be invalid vote for the election petitioner-Ranju and therefore her tally of votes came to 245. The elected candidate-appellant had invalid vote bearing Serial No.3755009 as it contained the mark of instrument both against her name and as against the column of ‘NOTA’. Similarly, in the Ballot Paper bearing Serial No.3756288, it was found that two marks were present against the name of the elected candidate-Ms. Anu Rangta and against the name of another candidate namely-Anjana Chauhan.

5. The learned Single Judge had folded all the said Ballot Paper to find out that whether it was a smudge mark and came to the conclusion that the same was not possible. Resultantly, the said vote was declared as invalid vote having a mark against two candidates. Another vote as such which was disputed out of the three votes containing Ballot Paper bearing Serial No.3753592 had been checked and there was no smudge mark and no other mark it was validly considered against her name. Therefore, the entitlement from 243 was given to 244.

6. Resultantly, it has been held that the appellant had only polled 244 votes, whereas the election petitioner had polled 245 votes, since, her vote which had been objected to had found to contain not a proper mark. Resultantly, for the difference of one vote, the election petitioner was held to be a winning candidate and declared elected to the office of the Pradhan of the Panchayat, which had been held on 21.01.2021.

Arguments of counsel for the appellant:
7. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge had exceeded to his jurisdiction while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and submitted that as per the provisions of Section 164, the contents of the petition of the election petition had to show concise statement of material facts, on which the p