2025:HHC:23703 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.633 of 2021 Decided on: 22.07.2025 Sidhant Manhas … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 6 and 7-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “A By issuing the writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the order of Election Commissioner and further District Election Officer Kangra, for conducting fresh elections dated 22.01.2021 vide Annexure P-4. B By issuing the writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the declaration of the respondent No.2 as Elected Pradhan 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23703 vide Annexure P-5. C. By issuing the writ of mandamus directing the respondents Authorities to treat the petitioner as Elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Basantpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. declared and announced vide Annexuře P-1. D. By issuing the writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 not to act and function as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Basantpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. in any manner.” 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the holding of re- election to the Office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Basantpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P., which were held on 23.01.2021. 3. It is not in dispute that the election for the Office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Basantpur (supra) were initially held on 19.01.2021. As the said election held on 19.01.2021, was declared to be vitiated due to certain wrong actions taken by the Assistant Returning Officer, after seeking a report from the independent Observer appointed by the State Election Commission, the Commission decided to conduct a re-pole for the post of Pradhan on 23.01.2021. 4. This was done and both the petitioner and contesting respondent participated in the same and the contesting respondent was declared as the elected candidate. 3 2025:HHC:23703 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, praying for the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove. It is clarified that the subsequent election was held on 23.01.2021 and not on 22.01.2021 as is mentioned in the relief clause. 6. It is a matter of record that after the election held on 19.01.2021 was declared vitiated on the ground that the Assistant Returning Officer had violated the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder in terms of the report submitted by the Observer appointed by the State Election Commission and after it was decided to conduct fresh elections on 23.01.2021 for the Office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, these decisions were not assailed by the petitioner either before any Authority or the Court of Law. 7. As already observed hereinabove, the petitioner as well as the private respondent participated in the fresh elect/re-election held on 23.01.2021 in which the private respondent was declared as elected. It is thereafter that the petitioner after being defeated in the subsequent elections filed this writ petition praying for the aforementioned reliefs. 8. In this backdrop, in the light of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties as well as other learned counsel, this Court is of the considered view that this writ 4 2025:HHC:23703 petition per se is not maintainable. 9. This is for the reason that the petitioner having participated in the subsequent elections held on 23.01.2021, is estopped from raising any finger on the conduct of the respondent- Authorities of holding subsequent election. 10. If the petitioner indeed was aggrieved by the holding of fresh election/re-election on 23.01.2021, then he should have had immediately approached the appropriate Court of Law against the notification, in terms whereof, such election was declared to be held. 11. Besides this, the bonafidies of the petitioner are otherwise also doubtful, for the reason that he participated in the fresh elections without protest and after loosing the same he approached the Court. Otherwise also, the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the election of the contesting respondent, cannot be granted in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as election can be challenged by way of election petition only. As far as the prayer for setting aside the Notification, in terms whereof, fresh elections were ordered to be held, this Court reiterates that the petitioner having participated in the subsequent process has no locus to assail this Notification. 12. On a query raised by the Court to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as to why the petitioner did not assail the 5 2025:HHC:23703 election of the private respondent by way of election petition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the grounds on which he is assailing the election are not available under Section 175 of the Panchayati Raj Act, i.e. that the subsequent elections were also held in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The Court does not concurs with the said submission of learned counsel, for the reason that a perusal of Section 175(1) (d) (iii) demonstrates that the grounds for declaring the election to be void include any non- compliance with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and any Rule made under the said Act. 13. Accordingly, in the light of above observation, as this petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2025 (Rishi)