Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8028 (HP)

PARDEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/7775/2026 · 2026-05-18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7775 of 2026 Decided on: 18.05.2026 Pardeep Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge At the oral request made by the petitioner, the State Election Commission through its Secretary is impleaded as respondent No.4. 2. Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and 4, respectively. 3. Petitioner presented his nomination paper on 11.05.2026 for contesting election of office of Pardhan, Gram Panchyat, Bhaloo, (reserved for Scheduled Caste 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 category) Tehsil Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P. in the ensuing elections to the State Panchayati Raj institutions notified by respondent No.4 on 29.04.2026. Petitioner’s nomination was rejected by respondent No.3 on 12.05.2026 on the grounds: ‘(i) Date is not clear in the Scheduled Caste certificate and is very old. (ii) As per case No. 4/2006 in the office of Sub- Divisional Officer (C), Chopal, belongs to Sunar caste which does not fall under the scheduled caste category.’ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention to Annexure P-2 and on that basis submits that petitioner was issued a certificate belonging to scheduled caste category (Bharida) on 23.03.2004 by Executive Magistrate, Kupavi. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention to ‘Shajra nasab’ appended at Annexure P-5 where Bharida is mentioned as Bharida (Thathera). The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment Act, 1976) circulated by the respondent- State on 18.11.1977 was also placed on record to the effect that Thathera has been recognized as belonging to Scheduled caste category at Sr. No.56 thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that case 3 No.4/2006 (in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Chopal) referred to by respondent No.3 for rejecting petitioner’s nomination on the ground that the aforesaid case pertains to a person belonging to ‘Sunar’ caste, is factually incorrect as the aforesaid case does not belong to the petitioner; The aforesaid case relates to S/Sh. Dhaju Ram, Devi Ram, Kansiya and Chet Ram and not the petitioner. 5. The first reason assigned for rejecting the petitioner’s nomination does not appear to be valid. Not accepting the scheduled caste certificate only on the ground of said certificate being old, is not justified. Person will continue to belong to scheduled caste category irrespective of date of issuance of the certificate. The certificate being old will not alter such status of petitioner. Petitioner has also raised factual grounds qua the second reason assigned by respondent No.3 for turning down his nomination. According to the petitioner, the case No.4/2026 referred to by respondent No.3 does not pertain to the petitioner. In the given facts, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, therefore, is required to be quashed and set-aside with directions to respondent No.3 to consider the nomination of the petitioner afresh in 4 accordance with law by 4:00 P.M today. Ordered accordingly. Petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that in case petitioner’s nomination is accepted, all consequential action including assigning symbol to the petitioner shall be allotted to him by 5:00 P.M. today. Election schedule notified by respondent No.4 on 29.04.2026 shall not be disturbed in any manner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 18, 2026 Judge yogesh