IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWPIL No. 55 of 2025 Date of decision: 17.03.2026 Desh Raj Tiwari …Petitioner Versus f Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

Whether approved four reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lal and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates.

G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

The prayer in the present writ petition is in the Hnature of mandamus to un-reserve the Jhandutta Assembly Constituency. The grouse as such of the petitioner is that the population of the Scheduled Castes category is shown as 28.54% and there are other assembly constituencies having higher percentage of Scheduled Castes population and the constituency of the petitioner has remained reserved from its inception for the Scheduled Castes category.

2. The stand of the respondents is that firstly the present petition is not maintainable in view of the Article 329 of the Constitution and secondly that in view of Article 170(3) of the Constitution, the re-adjustment of number of seats, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year, 2026 have been published, only then re-adjustment of the allocation of the seats in the Legislative Assembly canf be done.

3. The petitioner’s representation apparently had met with rejection vide communication dated 05.03.2025 that when the De-limitation Commissrion is constituted by the Government of India, the representation will be considered.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Purushottam Reddy vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC Online SC 1513, to contend that Apex Court has held that de-

glimitation process is a legislative and executive function and the Court would not interfere with the policy-making prerogative of the Executive.

5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since consideration of the representation would take place in due course by the De-limitation Commission whenever constituted by the Government of India, he would prefer to withdraw the present petition at this stage to press his representation before the concerned quarter.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.

(G. S. Sandhawalia)

C hief Justice (Bipin C. Negi)

17^th March, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)