Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following Order:

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

1. Yesterday a mention was made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. that all these bunch of petitions be preponed from 06.01.2025 to 03.01.2025 and on their request, mention was accepted, and the matter was posted for today. 2. Today, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. placed before this Court the written instructions of Deputy Secretary, in order to assist this Court.

3. On the previous date the arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in all these bunch of petitions, they placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another, 2023 SCC Online SC 1140 relied upon particularly placing reliance in paragraph 37 and 44, which has been quoted in para 24 of my order dated 31.12.2024.

4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon three more judgments, one is in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi & others 1978 (1) SCC 405 and particularly they relied upon paragraphs 28 & 29 of the said judgment, which are as under:-

28. What emerges from this perspicacious reasoning, if we may say so with great respect, is that any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question” an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. We should not slur over the quite essential observation “Anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election.” Likewise, it is fallacious to treat “a single step taken in furtherance of an election” as equivalent to election.”

29. Thus, there are two types of decisions, two types of challenges. The first relates to proceedings which interfere with the progress of the election. The second accelerates the completion of the election and acts in furtherance of an election. So, the short question before us, in the light of the illumination derived from Ponnuswami is as to whether the order for re-poll of the Chief Election Commissioner is “anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding” and whether the proceedings before the High Court fecilitated the election process or halted its progress. The question immediately arises as to whether the relief sought in the writ petition by the present appellant amounted to calling in question the election. This, in turn, revolves round the point as to whether the cancellation of the poll and the reordering of fresh poll is “part of election”and challenging it is “calling it in question”.

5. By referring these two paragraphs, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all these bunch of petitions, there is no challenge to the election proceeding initiated by the State Election Commission, pursuant to the notification, issued on 23.12.2024. He submits that in these bunch of petitions, the challenge is confined to allotment of seats of chairperson in respect of Municipalities (i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad and Nagar Panchayat) and Municipal Corporations, therefore, the objections, as raised on the previous date by the State and the State Election Commission that these petitions are not maintainable cannot be accepted. Another judgement, which has been relied upon by Mr. K.K. Tiwari, who also represent petitioner in WPMS No. 3627 of 2024 is in the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat, (2020) 6 SCC 548, and particularly placed reliance in paragraph 14 & 15 of this judgment, which are being reproduced herein as under:-

“14. The contention of the respondents that the present proceedings amount to “calling in question an election” and hence not being maintainable in view of the express constitutional embargos of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG does not imp