2026:HHC:23239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9787 of 2026 Decided on: 19th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajit Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 2. Petitioner filed his nomination for contesting the election to the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kashapath, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla in the recently held elections to the State Panchayati Raj institutions. His nomination was rejected. Respondent No.5 alongwith three other candidates contested the election. The result was 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23239 declared on 26.05.2026. Respondent No.5 was declared successful and elected for the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kashapath. Petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking directions to immediately disqualify respondent No.5 in view of the fact that he allegedly owes disqualification for being an office bearer of panchayat in view of Section 122(1)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 on the ground that respondent No.5 and his family members are encroachers over the government land. Relevant portion of Section 122 highlighted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is as under:- “122. Disqualifications- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, an office bearer, of a Panchayat- (a) & (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) if he or any of his family member(s) has encroached upon any land belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of, the State Government, a Municipality, a Panchayat or a Co-operative Society unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date on which he or any of his family member, as the case may be, is ejected therefrom or ceases to be the encroacher. (2) The question whether a person is or has become subject to any of the disqualifications under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A), shall after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, be decided- (i) if such question arises during the process of an election, by an officer as may be authorized in this behalf by the State Government, in consultation with the State Election Commission; and 3 2026:HHC:23239 (ii) if such question arises after the election process is over, by the Deputy Commissioner.” 3. Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provides statutory remedy to the petitioner for declaring the election of respondent No.5 as void. Sections 162 and 175 of the Act in this regard read as under:- “162. Election petitions – No election under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 175. Grounds for declaring election to be void- (1) If the authorized officer is of the opinion- (a) that on the date of his election the elected person was not qualified, or was disqualified to be elected under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by the elected person or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the elected person or his agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the elected person, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rule made under this Act, the authorized officer shall declare the election of the elected persons to be void. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 175-A, when an election of an elected person has been declared to be void under sub-section (1), a fresh election shall be held under the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” 4 2026:HHC:23239 It will also be appropriate to refer to the decision rendered in Manish Dharmaik Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “……………… We are also conscious of the limitations set forth on such exercise of judicial review in view of bar of jurisdiction imposed by Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which is quoted hereinbelow :- “243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State.” In Bal Krishan and others Vs. State of H.P. and others 2015 (6) ILR (HP) 914, this Court considered the preliminary objections relating to maintainability of the writ petitions questioning the constitution, re- constitution, delimitation, reservation of the Panchayat areas, merger of Panchayats with Municipal areas and vice-versa, change of headquarters of Gram Panchayats, amalgamation and alteration of respective Panchayat areas on ground that such actions of respondents were in violation of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules 1994 etc. After considering entire legal gamut, the position was summed up in following operative para 33:- “33. The proposition which can now be culled out from the above noted judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts including this Court is that:- (1) The word “election” appearing in Article 243-O and the provisions contained in the 1994 Act and the rules framed thereunder bears larger connotation. It embraces and includes all steps commencing from the date of 2 CWP No.5987 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 06.01.2021 5 2026:HHC:23239 notification by the Competent Authority, whereby the electorates are called upon to elect Pradhans and Up- Pradhans and ending with declaration of result. Reservation of offices of Pradhan and Wards in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women, preparation, printing and publication of electoral rolls (provisional and final), filing of nomination papers, scrutiny of nomination papers and withdrawal thereof, publication of the list of eligible candidates, allotment of symbols, appointment of election agents, the conduct of poll, counting of votes, declaration of results and all other ancillary steps taken for the purpose of holding elections fall within the ambit of the term “election”. {N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra)}. (2)(i) The bar contained in Article 243-O, which begins with non-obstante clause, debars all Courts from entertaining any challenge to law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seat made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K or election to the Panchayats. This bar also operates against the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226. (N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra)} (ii) The proposition contained in Clause (i) above is subject to the condition that challenge to the delimitation may be entertained in exceptional cases where no objections were invited and no hearing was given provided that such challenge is made before issue of notification for holding election. {State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti (supra)}. (iii) The bar contained in Article 243-O (a) would operate immediately after publication of notification of delimitation of Panchayat areas even in cases where the same is challenged prior to issuance of notification of election. (iv) The bar contained in Article 243-O(b) operates only till the adjudication of election dispute by an adjudicatory forum created by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. An order made by an adjudicatory forum constituted under the law made by the State Legislature can be called in question by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6 2026:HHC:23239 (3) The bar contained in Article 243-O operates at all stages of the election i.e. notification issued by the State Election Commission calling upon the electorate to elect Pradhans and Up-Pradhans; reservation of offices of Pradhans in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women; preparation, printing and publication of electoral rolls (provisional and final), filing of nomination papers, scrutiny and withdrawal thereof; allotment of symbols; appointment of election agents; counting of votes and declaration of result. (4) The bar contained in Article 243-O(b) does not operate qua challenge to the constitutionality of a statutory provision relating to elections, though, even in such a case, the High Court will be extremely loath to pass an interlocutory order which has the effect of stalling or jeopardizing the process of election or which may result in the constitutional hiatus on account of indirect violation of Article 243-K(3) read with Article 243-K(1). (5) Where the petitioner raises grounds which is not barred under the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and is not covered in any one of the grounds as prescribed under Section 175(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, then the bar of alternate remedy by way of election petition under Section 162 of the Act and further bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution would not be attracted. Even in such cases, the Court will not normally pass interlocutory orders, which has effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election.” (emphasis supplied).” 4. In view of the statutory remedy of filing an election petition provided under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, this writ petition is not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 19, 2026 Judge Mukesh