IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7660 of 2026 Decided on: 18th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohinder 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. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.9-State Election Commission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge At the oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the ‘Himachal Pradesh State Election Commission, through its Secretary’ shall stand impleaded as respondent No.9. 2. Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 and respondent No.9, respectively. In view of the order being passed hereinafter, there is no requirement of issuing notice to respondent No.8 or to call for reply from the appearing respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner feels aggrieved against acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.8 for the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Grawag, Development Block Kotkhai, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had objected to respondent No.8’s nomination on the ground that his father had encroached upon government land and therefore, respondent No.8 was disqualified from contesting elections in view of Section 122(1)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. According to learned counsel, respondent No.8’s nomination was liable to be rejected, whereas, the Assistant Returning Officer- respondent No.7 despite petitioner’s objections, accepted the nomination in terms of impugned scrutiny report dated 13.05.2026. 4. The case file reflects that the Assistant Returning Officer had taken into consideration the response 3 of respondent No.8 to the objections preferred by the petitioner while accepting respondent No.8’s nomination. In terms of Section 175(1) read with Section 162 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the petitioner has statutory remedy for declaring an election to be void on the ground that there had been improper acceptance of the nomination. In view of statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the relief prayed for by him, in the given facts of the case, cannot be gone into in this writ petition. The writ petition to accordingly stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 18, 2026 Judge Mukesh