2026:HHC:35727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Election Petition No. 1 of 2022 Decided on: August 18, 2026 ___________________________________________________________ Shri Ram Lal Thakur ……... Petitioner Versus Shri Randhir Sharma and others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satya Pal Jain and Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Mr. Anshul Attri and Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocates, for respondent No.1. Respondents No. 2 to 4 ex parte. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, deleted on 20.3.2024. ___________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral) Vide order dated 26.9.2025, while partly allowing EMP No. 6 of 2023, an application under Order VI, rule 16 read with Order VII, rule 11 further read with S.151 CPC, this Court had directed the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit in terms of S.83(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with rule 94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form-25 of 1961 Rules on or before 15.10.205, failing which it was ordered that the Election Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed under Order VII, rule 11 CPC. Pursuant to said order an affidavit in terms of order dated 26.9.2025 (sic: 29.09.2025) has been filed by the petitioner on 13.10.2025. Though, the affidavit has been filed well within the limitation but 2026:HHC:35727 2 respondent No.1 has filed objections to the same, claiming the same to be not in strict compliance of order dated 26.9.2025 and the provisions detailed herein above. 2. In view of above, the matter came to be listed before this Court, for adjudicating the issue of compliance of order dated 26.9.2025, vis-à-vis the issue, ‘whether the affidavit conforms to order supra and the provisions quoted above and whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of order dated 26.9.2025?’ 3. Before deciding the afore issue, it would be apt to take note of the circumstances, in which the Election Petition came to be filed. 4. By way of Election Petition No. 1 of 2022, filed under Ss. 80, 80(A) and 81 read with Ss. 100 and 101 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, challenge has been laid to election of respondent No.1 from AC 49- Shree Naina Devi Ji Constituency of State of Himachal Pradesh in Assembly Elections held in November, 2022. 5. Brief gist of the facts relevant in this case is that vide Notification dated 14.10.2022, election schedule for conduct of General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh was notified. Petitioner was a candidate of Indian National Congress and respondent No.1 was sponsored by Bharatiya Janata Party for the Constituency in question. Elections took place on 12.11.2022, in which there were three more candidates i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Counting of votes was done on 8.12.2022. It is averred in the petition that due to alleged illegalities committed by respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in the process of counting votes cast through Postal Ballots and corrupt practices adopted by respondent No.1, petitioner lost elections by a margin of 171 votes. The Counting 2026:HHC:35727 3 Agent of the petitioner sought recount of postal ballot papers on 8.12.2022, alleging that counting was not proper. Another application was made for recounting /reconsideration of invalid postal ballots and rejected votes on the ground that same had been wrongly rejected/invalidated. Application was allowed. In total 2816 postal ballots were received, 341 declared invalid. Out of remaining 2475 postal ballots, 14 were rejected by respondent No.5. Petitioner got 499 votes and respondent No.1 got 525 votes. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No.5, Observer was allowed two mobiles inside counting hall in violation of the Rules, and from one of mobile phones, respondent No.7 was reporting to some political functionaries of ruling party at Madhya Pradesh and New Delhi. 6. Petitioner further alleged violation of rule 54(a) of Conduct of Elections rules inasmuch as counting of postal ballots was to be done at table of Returning Officer and conclude before final counting of votes polled through EVMs, which was not done. Allegedly ruckus /confusion was created at one table. Mandatory requirement of additional micro observers for each table for postal ballot counting was not done. It is further alleged that respondent No. 7 being Observer was required to oversee process of counting of votes by postal ballots especially scrutiny of declaration in Form 13A and to make mention of total number of postal ballot papers received for counting, ballots rejected, number of tables provided for postal ballot counting and time taken. It is alleged that only one application for recount was allowed and only 2475 ballots out of 2816 were counted and 341 were left, which are more than the margin of victory. It is alleged that majority of postal ballots did not reach the counting centre/ returning officer, despite lapse of 8-10 days from the date 2026:HHC:35727 4 of posting. It is alleged that Returning Officer, respondent No.5 failed to comply with mandatory verification of VVPAT paper slips of randomly selected five Polling Stations as per Rule 56D of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 7. Besides this, it is alleged by petitioner that there was improper refusal and rejection and votes. No record was maintained and no re- verification was done by respondent Nos. 5 and 7. It is alleged that while rejecting 341 postal ballots, respondent Nos. 5 and 7 intentionally shut their eyes to Note appended to Clause 15.15.3 of Chapter 15 of Handbook for Returning Officers, in order to show undue favour to respondent No.1, which mandated that a postal ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the attesting officer has not put his seal on the declaration of the Elector in Form 13A. 8. It is further the case of petitioner that votes were obtained by returned candidate by corrupt practices. It is alleged that respondent No.1 distributed liquor and money in order to influence electorate to cast votes in his favour. 9. In support of election petition, the petitioner appended following affidavit: “IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA H.P Election Petition No. /2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Shri Ram Lal Thakur .. Petitioner Versus Shri Randhir Sharma and Ors. .. Respondents AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION I, Ram Lal Thakur, Son of Shri Paras Ram Thakur, Resident of Village Ghial, Post Office Namhol, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P., Aged about 71 years, Occupation Former Minister and MLA, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under: 2026:HHC:35727 5 1. That the accompanying petition has been drafted under my instructions. 2. That the contents of Paras 1 to 6 of the petition are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief and the contents Para 7 to 13 of the petition are true and correct on the basis of legal advice received and believed to be correct, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. 3. That I further declare on solemn oath that the contents of this affidavit of mine are true, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Affirmed at Shimla on 15th day of December 2022.” 10. Reply was filed by respondent No.5, but later on EMP No. 4 of 2023 was filed for withdrawal of reply and EMP No. 7 of 2023 was filed for deleting names of respondents Nos. 5 to 7, both of which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.3.2024. 11. Thereafter, during the pendency of the petition, EMP No. 6 of 2023 under Order VI, rule 16 read with Order VII, rule 11 read with S.151 CPC read with Ss. 81, 83, 86 and 87 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 was filed for striking off paragraphs 3, 4, 7(I)(a) to (f), 7(II)(a) & (b), 7(III)(a) and 8 of Election Petition and for dismissal of election petition, by respondent No.1. It is averred in the application that election petition is in violation of statutory provisions of law, is vague, ambiguous, lacks in material facts and particulars. It is averred that the petition is in violation of S.82 which pertains to joining of parties and respondents Nos. 5 to 7, who are neither candidates nor necessary party have been arrayed as respondents. It is averred that the petition is not as per S.83 of Representation of the People Act, 1951, as allegations of corrupt practices are to be specifically mentioned. 2026:HHC:35727 6 12. It is averred that as per S.94A, election petition is to be supported by affidavit referred to in proviso to sub-section (1) of S.83 which is to be sworn in before a Magistrate of first class or a notary or a commissioner of oaths, in Form 25. It is averred that though allegations of corrupt practices have been made but prescribed affidavit in Form 25 has not been filed. It is alleged that allegations of corrupt practices, leveled in paragraphs 7 to 13, have been verified as ‘true and correct as per legal advice received. It is averred that Paragraphs 7(I)(a) to (f) pertain to non-compliance of provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and rules, Directions and Orders but as per S.100(1)(d)(iv), any non-compliance or violation of any provision or rules of the Act ibid would not itself be a ground to set aside an election, until it materially affects election result. It is averred that petitioner has not claimed that all 341 invalid votes or majority thereof was cast in his favour. Similarly, it is averred that though in paragraphs 7(II)(a) and (b), petitioner alleged invalidation of 341 votes by respondent Nos. 5 and 7 but S.100(1)(d)(iii) mandates that same is not a ground for setting aside an election. 13. It is averred in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the application that election law requires that pleadings must be clear and specific and should make out a clear cut case before same can be put to trial. It is averred that election petition has also not been verified by the petitioner as required by S.83(1)(c) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Code of Civil Procedure. It is averred that S.83(2) of the Act ibid requires that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed and verified in the same manner as the petition. Order VI, rule 15 CPC not only requires verification of pleadings at the foot but also requires furnishing of an 2026:HHC:35727 7 affidavit in support of same. It is averred that verification of election petition is no verification in the eyes of law as paragraphs 1 to 6 have been verified on the basis of information, knowledge as well as belief which is not only self contradictory but in violation of requirement of law. 14. Petitioner filed reply to EMP No.6 of 2023 taking preliminary objections of cause of action, maintainability of application, respondent No.1 not approaching court with clean hands, intention to prolong the proceedings. On merit, it is averred that petition contains all material facts. So far non-compliance of S.94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and S.83(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 are concerned, it has been denied that there is any contravention of said provisions and it is pleaded that at best, same can be treated as a ‘curable defect’. 15. Respondent No.1 filed rejoinder to the reply filed by petitioner to EMP No. 7 of 2023, thereby denying contents of reply and reiterating those of the application. 16. This Court, took up EMP No. 6 of 2023 on 8.9.2025 and reserved the order. Order was pronounced on 26.9.2025, wherein, this Court observed in paragraphs 43 to 46 as under: “43. Therefore, in light of the fact that it is mentioned in the petition that the acts of corrupt practice were with the consent and positive knowledge of respondent No.1 in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be said that the requirements of Section 123 or Section 83(1) have not been made out in the pleadings of the case so as to throw the petition out, at the outset. This Court is not even remotely suggesting that there is merit in whatever has been alleged in the petition. All this this Court is observing is that because there are averments made in the petition, that the acts of corrupt practice were with the knowledge and consent of the returned candidate, therefore, it cannot be said that the basic pleadings which were 2026:HHC:35727 8 required to be incorporated in the election petition were not included in the election petition. 44. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot come to the rescue of the applicant and the election petition cannot be rejected on this count. It will be very dangerous to throw out the petition under Order VII, Rule 11 at this stage and it would be in the interest of justice to let the parties contest the election petition on merit. 45. The other contentions raised in the application for the rejection of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the considered view of this Court should be best left open for the parties to contest on merit. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant had emphatically argued that the allegations with regard to the non- adherence of statutory provisions by the Officers and Officials concerned were not supplemented with the pleadings and that all this was at the behest of returned candidate. It was also contended on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel that there are no averments in the petition stating that whatever has been alleged in the election petition has materially affected the outcome of the election petition. All this can always be raised by the applicant by way of defence and these facts can be taken care of by the Court at a later stage during the course of trial. 46. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. As this Court has found the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition to be deficient and not in terms of Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act read with Rule 94A of the 1961 Rule and Form-25A thereof, an opportunity is given to the election petitioner to file a fresh affidavit to rectify the said deficiency on or before 15.10.2025. If needful is not done by the petitioner on or before 15.10.2025, then, the Election Petition shall be deemed to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on this count. However, on other counts, the Court does not find any merit in the present application. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2026:HHC:35727 9 17. Order dated 26.9.2025, has not been laid challenge by any of parties and therefore, same has attained finality. It was specifically observed that affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition is deficient and not in terms of Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act read with Rule 94A of the 1961 Rule and Form-25A and an opportunity was granted to the election petitioner to file a fresh affidavit to rectify the said deficiency on or before 15.10.2025. It was further mandated that If needful is not done by the petitioner on or before 15.10.2025, then, the Election Petition shall be deemed to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on this count. 18. Thereafter, on 12.10.2025, following affidavit was filed in compliance of order dated 26.9.2025 (sic: 29.09.2025) by the petitioner: “IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA H.P Election Petition No. 01/2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Shri Ram Lal Thakur .. Petitioner Versus Shri Randhir Sharma and Ors. .. Respondents AFFIDAVIT IN TERMS OF FORM -25, RULE 94-A OF THE CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES. (As COMPLIANCE ORDER DATED 29.09.2025 I, Ram Lal Thakur, Son of Shri Paras Ram Thakur, Resident of Village Ghial, Post Office Namhol, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P., Aged about 74 years, Occupation Former Minister and MLA, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under: 1. That I am the petitioner in the above titled election petition. 2. That the Statements made in para-7(III)(a) of the Election Petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of distribution of liquor and money in order to influence the electorate to cast votes in favour of the respondent No.1, are true and correct to my knowledge. 3. That the Statements made in para-7(III)(a) of the Election Petition regarding corrupt practices are that during 2026:HHC:35727 10 the course of Elections, the Respondent No.1 used and distributed liquor and money in order to influence the electorate to cast votes in his favour. On 11.11.2022, the Petitioner received information that agents of the Respondent No.1 were distributed liquor and money at Jamlaghat. Immediately, the Petitioner called upon his supporters to act in this behalf. Thereafter on 11.11.2022, itself, at about 09:00 pm, the supporters of the petitioner intercepted a Tata Nano vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-69-2126, wherein three persons were seated, suspecting that the same was being used to transfer and distribute liquor and money. On being intercepted, two of the occupants of the vehicle fled away from the spot and only one namely Shri Dev Raj, Son of Shri Ram Dittu, Resident of Village Thalaila, Post Office Dagsech, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. remained. On checking the vehicle was found to be transporting one bottle of country liquor (Santra), three bottles of IMFL (Episode) and three bags which had been used for distribution of money and liquor. The occupant of the vehicle Shri Dev Raj disclosed that the liquor and money was being transported and distributed by him and other supporters, at the instance, with the consent and positive knowledge of the Respondent No.1 for being distributed amongst the voters at Jamlaghat. The said Shri Dev Raj further disclosed that he alongwith other supporters of the Respondent No.1 had been doing this for the past 3-4 days. An intimation in this regard was sent to the SHO, Barmana for taking appropriate action and on his failure to do the needful, intimation had to be sent to the SP, Bilaspur, H.P. It is only thereafter that police officials came on the spot and a criminal case was registered. On the same day i.e. 11.11.2022, another person namely Shri Krishan Singh, Son of Shri Madhav Ram, Resident of Village Gawahi Cheta, Post Office Namhol, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., was intercepted at Village Bathoh Hardu in Vehicle No. HP- 24B-1513, while he was carrying Two Boxes of Country Liquor (Santra), by the supporters of the Petitioner. The said Shri Krishan Singh on being asked also disclosed that he had been distributing liquor in the nearby areas at the instance, consent and positive knowledge of the Respondent No.1. An intimation in this regard was also sent to the SHO, 2026:HHC:35727 11 Barmana, but no action whatsoever was initiated for the reasons that the Respondent NO.1 was contesting as a candidate from the political party in power and as such, was able to manipulate things. A perusal of the booth-wise voting pattern would reveal that the performance of the petitioner in the polling booths surrounding the area where persons of respondent No.1 were caught distributing money and liquor, has been adversely hit. The corrupt practice indulged into by the Respondent No.1 and his supporters has thus materially influenced the voters of the area and affected the result to a large extent, resulting in the defeat of the Petitioner by a slender margin of 173 votes. The voters have voted for the Respondent No.1 out of their free will but their right to vote has been illegally affected by acts of bribery and undue influence. The Statement made in the aforesaid paragraph of the election petition is true to my information. Affirmed at Shimla on 12th day of October, 2025.” 19. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the aforesaid affidavit, stating that the affidavit filed in compliance of order dated 26.9.2025, does not comply with essence of enactment. It is averred that allegations of ‘corrupt practices’ averred in election petition vis-à-vis contents of supporting affidavit under scrutiny do not satisfy the substance of the statute because the allegations regarding corrupt practice have been made by the petitioner in paragraph 7(III)(a) of the election petition and an earlier affidavit dated 15.12.2022 already stands sworn wherein paragraphs 7 to 13 including these regarding corrupt practices, have been verified by the petitioner in the other affidavit as ‘true and correct as per legal advice received only. It is stated that the petitioner has not bothered to amend his plaint and file a fresh affidavit to rectify this defect where two distinct affidavits have been sworn on the same subject matter, which renders the fresh affidavit dated 12.10.2025 as null and void. It is averred that the petitioner failed to comply with order dated 26.9.2025 and also failed to 2026:HHC:35727 12 comply with proviso to S.83(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It is averred that in view of above, petitioner failed to avail opportunity to rectify the deficiency on or before 15.10.2025 and therefore, election petition deserves to be declared to be deemed to have been dismissed under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in terms of order dated 26.9.2025. 20. Another objection has been taken that as per S.81(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, every election petition is required to be accompanied by as many copies thereof, as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy is required to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition, but in this case, the petitioner had failed to attest the copies of affidavits under his signature to be a true copy before supplying a copy thereof to respondent No.1. It is averred that otherwise the copy of affidavit is not the exact copy as filed before this Court. 21. The petitioner filed reply to the objections, stating therein that application under Order VII, rule 11 CPC stood already dismissed and as such, objections were not maintainable. So far compliance of S.83(1) of 1951 Act is concerned, it is stated that fresh affidavit has been filed in Form 25-A, within specified time limit. It is denied by the petitioner that allegations of corrupt practices averred in the election petition vis-à-vis contents of supporting affidavit do not satisfy the substance of statute. It is averred by petitioner that such submission of respondent No.1 stand rejected by this Court on 26.9.2025. It is stated by petitioner that he is not required to amend the plaint or file fresh affidavit. It is averred that affidavit 2026:HHC:35727 13 on Form 25-A duly signed on every page stands furnished to respondent No.1. 22. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce Form 25, which provides for the format of affidavit to be filed in terms of rule 94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: “[FORM 25 (See rule 94A) AFFIDAVIT I, ………………., the petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in question the election of Shri /Shrimati ….. (respondent No. ………….. in the said petition) make solemn affirmation/ oath and say – (a) that the statements made in paragraphs… of the accompanying election petition about the commission of corrupt practice of * … and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs … of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge. (b) that the statements made in paragraphs … of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of *….. and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs … of the said petition and in paragraphs … of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information ; (c) . (d) . etc. Signature of deponent Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Shri /Shrimati … at … this … day of … 20 ….. Before me, Magistrate of the first class/ Notary/ Commissioner of Oaths] * Here specify the name of the corrupt practice.] 23. If the affidavit filed by petitioner in terms of order dated 26.9.2025 is seen vis-à-vis Form 25, it is clear that the affidavit filed by petitioner in terms of order dated 26.9.2025, is not in conformity with Form 25 and 2026:HHC:35727 14 therefore does not comply with mandate of Section 83(1) of 1951 Act and rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Further this Court finds that same contents i.e. contents of para 7(III) (a) and (b) have been verified to be ‘true to knowledge of petitioner and in second paragraph of affidavit, same have been verified to be true to information of the petitioner. 24. True it is that vide order dated 26.9.2025, EMP No. 6 of 2023, stood almost dismissed, except to the extent of filing of affidavit in terms of S.83(1) of Act and rule 94A of the rules, which the petitioner was required to comply on or before 15.10.2025, failure whereof entailed dismissal of election petition. Admittedly said order has attained finality as no challenge was laid thereto by either of parties and since this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to comply with direction contained in order dated 26.9.2025, petition is hereby dismissed in terms of order dated 26.9.2025. The Election Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms and in light of direction contained in concluding para of order dated 26.9.2025. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 18, 2026 (Vikrant)