Vishal Mehta Vs State of Hp and Others

2. Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 and 4, respectively.

¶16

3. In view of grievance of the petitioner, the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view an urgency urged in view of

¶17

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶18

2

¶19

notification issued on 29.04.2026 by respondent No.4, publishing the election schedule for ensuing elections to the State Panchayati Raj institutions, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage without calling for replies from the appearing respondents and without issuing notices to respondent No.3/ the complainant.

¶20

4. Petitioner presented his nomination for contesting election to the office of Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. Respondent No.3 filed objections to petitioner’s candidature on 12.05.2026 on the ground that petitioner’s father had encroached government land. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out to Annexure P-3, which is an application purportedly filed by petitioner’s father (registered as case No.1085/2002) for regularizing the encroachment statedly made by him, given Ex. No.PW5/A and submitted that Annexure P-3 was the document placed on record by respondent No.3 before the Assistant Returning Officer/ respondent No.2 alongwith her objections.

¶21

Petitioner filed reply to the objections (Annexure P-4). Considering the complaint, as also, response thereto, respondent No.2 rejected petitioner’s

¶22

3

¶23

nomination on 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that petitioner’s father had applied for regularization of land mentioned therein.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner had contested the elections for the post of Up-Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in the year, 2021 and emerged successful therein. His elections were put to question by respondent No.3 by filing Election Petition in case No. 11-3/2021 which was dismissed by the SubDivisional Officer (C), Rampur Bushahr, Tehsil Shimla on 19.07.2024 holding that petitioner therein (present respondent No.3) had failed to establish any substantial ground for disqualification of respondent No.1 (present petitioner). The order dated 19.07.2024 also refers to file No. 1085/2002 exhibited therein as PW5/A and inter alia makes following observations:-

¶25

“In view of the above, I have carefully and meticulously gone through the petition, perused evidence so led by the parties and arguments advanced by both the parties. Firstly the main contention of the petitioner in her petition is that the father of respondent No.1 has encroached upon government land, which would disqualify the respondent from contesting the election for the post of Up-Pardhan. However, upon examining the evidence presented by both the parties, it was found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentary proof or credible testimony to substantiate the claim that the

¶26

4

¶27

father of respondent No.1 encroached upon government land. The documents provided by the petitioner, including copies of Jamabandis, do not conclusively establish that the land in question is under the unauthorized possession of respondent No.1’s father. Furthermore, no officials records from the Revenue Department were presented to confirm the alleged encroachment. As such, this issue is decided in favour of respondent No.1 As issue No.1 has been decided against the petitioner, it logically follows that respondent No.1 could not be disqualified on the grounds of alleged encroachment by his father. The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as amended, requires clear evidence of disqualification, which the petitioner has failed to establish. Moreover, the nomination of respondent No.1 was accepted after due scrutiny by the Assistant Returning Officer, who did not find any grounds for disqualification at that stage. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of respondent No.1, confirming his eligibility to contest the election. As such, issue No. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner.”

¶28

The aforesaid order passed in petitioner’s

¶29

favour is stated to have attained finality. It appears that respondent No.2- Assistant Returning Officer has not properly appreciated the order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) while rejecting nomination of the petitioner.

¶30

5. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set-aside. In order to protect interests of all the parties including respondent No.3, respondent No.2– the Assistant Returning Officer is

¶31

5

¶32

directed to consider the nomination of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties if feasible, by 6:00 P.M. today. All legal consequences shall follow. It is, however, made clear that 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.

¶33

May 18, 2026 yogesh

¶34

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Vishal Mehta v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Mehta v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs Ritesh Chauhan

Rosy Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kuthiala and Others Vs the Mc Shimla and Another

Surinder Kumar Vs Secretary Panchayati Raj and Others

Amarjeet Kaur Vs State of Hp and Others

Parma Nand and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another