IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.WP Nos. 2951 and 2952/2009 Date of decision: 26. 2. 2010 Geeta Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . no For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Surinder Singh (Oral) Both the petitions have arisen from the order (Annexure P5) dated 18.8.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. whereby the petitioner was held disqualified and her election for the said post was set aside. Heard. Allegations in the present petition are with respect to the encroachment of the land, before the petitioner was elected as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. She had applied for the regularization of the government land encroached upon by her. When she was declared elected, her election was not assailed, inter alia on this ground by filing Election petition. However, after some timeone Param Dev and Urmila Devi both filed separate petitions one under Section 146 and another 146 (A) read with Section 122 (C) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 praying for her removal from the said post. After holding inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order, the gist of which is in the concluding para of the order which is usefully reproduced as under:- “In view of the observations made here-in-above, the present petitions are accepted and the election for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchyat, Reur is set aside. The respondent Smt. Gita Devi is upheld (sic) disqualified for being chosen for the post of Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Reur under the H.P. Panchayat Act, 1994…….” After considering the mater, I am of the view that it was not within the power of the Deputy Commissioner to set aside the election of the petitioner for the post of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. At the best he could have declared the petitioner to be disqualified to hold the said post. But - 3 - according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this was also not permissible under the law if the facts are looked into in the right perspective. However, keeping this point open, the case deserves to be remanded back for fresh decision. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties afresh and decide the matter under Section 122 (C) and each of them are at liberty to take all pleas/objections available to them. Parties are hereby directed to be present before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi on 8th April, 2010. The Deputy Commissioner shall make every endeavour to dispose of the matter within six weeks thereafter. CMP Nos. 106/2010. Disposed of in view of the disposal of the main petition. February 26, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)