1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7849 of 2026 Decided on: 19.05.2026 Sandeep Bekta @ Jonty …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dikken Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 3. Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Keeping in view the urgency pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, pleadings the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, notice of this petition is not required to be issued to respondent No.4. Reply is also not required from the appearing respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. Petitioner presented his nomination papers on 07.05.2026 for contesting elections for the office of Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, Kamah, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. Respondent No.4 preferred his objections on 12.05.2026 before respondent No.3- The Assistant Returning Officer against petitioner’s nomination on the ground that petitioner had concealed material facts in Annexure-1, appended with the nomination; That petitioner had been convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theog. Petitioner’s sentence was suspended by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2012. The petitioner had not disclosed all these facts appropriately in the annexure submitted by him alongwith his declaration/nomination. Further objection was taken that in view of petitioner’s conviction, bar under Section 122 (1) (b) gets attracted and petitioner would stand disqualified from contesting the election. Petitioner filed his response to the aforesaid objections of respondent No.4 inter alia pointing out that he had already disclosed material particulars about the criminal case faced by him, its decision resulting in 3 petitioner’s conviction and pendency of petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid conviction before this Court. Petitioner also pointed out in his response that he had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2012 against the judgment passed against him by the learned Additional Session Judge, Theog in case relating to F.I.R. No. 223/2008 whereby he had been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 05 years. That in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2012 filed by the petitioner vide an order dated 26.06.2012, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to Annexure P-2 [(Annexure-1) furnished by the petitioner alongwith his declaration/ nomination] and on that basis submitted that petitioner had filled in all the particulars in column No.1; Since sentence imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theog in F.I.R. No.223/2008 registered under Sections 341 and 325 of IPC had been suspended by this Court, he had mentioned pendency of his appeal against the conviction. 3. Prima- facie, it appears that petitioner had given information in Column No.1 of Annexure-1 about his conviction in F.I.R. No. 223/2008 registered under Sections 341 and 325 of IPC. Petitioner also disclosed the 4 name of the Court which had convicted him. Though in one of the columns, pertaining to the details of the conviction, petitioner has mentioned as N/A, however, in the next column, petitioner had referred to the pendency of an appeal before this court against his conviction by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theog. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without concealing any material facts, petitoner had filled in columns of the Annexure-1 as he understood such columns in his wisdom with no intention to conceal any of the facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention to Section 122 (1) (b) to contend that petitioner cannot be disqualified in view of his conviction under order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theog on 2012 as six years have gone by from the date of such conviction. Relevant portion of Section 122 (1)(b) 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) if he has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, unless a period of six years has elapsed since his conviction.” 4. It appears that aforesaid aspects have not been appropriately considered by respondent No.3 while rejecting petitioner’s nomination. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.05.2026 is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No.3- the Assistant Returning Officer is directed to consider the nomination papers of the petitioner for election to the office of Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, Kamah, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. afresh in accordance with law, by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties if feasible, by 5:00 P.M. today. All legal consequences shall follow. It is, however, made clear that election schedule notified by respondent No.2 on 29.04.2026 shall not be disturbed in any manner. Needless to add, respondent No.3 shall take a decision uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 19, 2026 Judge yogesh