2025:HHC:16303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1684 of 2019 Decided on: 27.05.2025 Sh. Jai Prakash … Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Election Commission and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- a) That the Writ of Prohibition may kindly be issued prohibiting/restricting the Respondent No. 3 to decide the election petition No. 03/2016 fresh as per the order of the Respondent No 2 dated 03-01-2019 in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 26-05-2017 passed by the the Respondent No -3 in the supra mentioned election petition as there had been prima facie error apparent on the face of record as the Respondent No.2 while disposing of the appeal took almost two years to decide the appeal from the date of the institution of the appeal and the Respondent 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:16303 No. 3 took more than one year in deciding the election petition of the petitioner No 03 of 2016 titled as Jai Prakash and Others versus Assistant Returning Officer etc. from the date of the institution of the election petition and as their had been lack of procedural fairness to be adopted by both Respondent No 2 and Respondent No.3. b). That the Writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued to quash FILE and aside, Annexure P-3, an order dated 03-01-2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 to an extent of giving a direction that JUL, 2019 2 the Election petition No.03 of 2016 titled as Jai Prakash versus Returning Officer etc Reader to ke be decided by respondent No.3 as Respondent No -3 had acted in a flagrant disregard of law and the rules of the procedure and also in violation of the principles of natural justice and thereby occasioning the failure of justice while initially deciding the Election Petition No.03 of 2016 in a cryptic way as per the order dated 26-05-2017 and as there had been no time bound direction to decide the election petition No. 03 of 2016 in a impugned order dated 03-01- 2019. c) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondent No.2 to transfer the Election Petition 03 of 2016 titled as Jai Prakash versus Assistant Returning Officer etc to Respondent No 4 from Respondent No.3 authorizing 3 2025:HHC:16303 him to do the final adjudication and to take a final decision in a time bound manner in the interest of equity, justice and fair play in the supra mentioned election petition.” 2. When this case was listed before the Court on 27.08.2019, the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner is absent. Post on 03.09.2019.” 3. Thereafter, on 03.09.2019, none appeared for the petitioner. Today also, despite repeated calls, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in default. 4. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in light of the prayer made in the writ petition, the petition has otherwise become infructuous. 5. Be that as it may, this writ petition is dismissed in default. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 27, 2025 (narender)