Challenges to the improper rejection of nomination papers in municipal elections must be pursued through an election petition as prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, rather than through a writ petition.

Whether approved for reportint g?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Notice. Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel, Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, learned vice counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 to 5 and 6 respectively.

2. Respondent No.5 rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner for Ward No.6 (reserved for Scheduled Caste category), Nagar Panchayat Amb, District Una, vide order dated 04.05.2026, hence, the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the elections in Nagar Panchayat Amb, District Una, from Ward No.6 (reserved for Scheduled Caste category). Along with the nomination paper, the petitioner furnished a bona fide Himachali certificate as well as a Scheduled Caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. The Assistant Returning Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Amb, rejected petitioner’s nomination paper on the ground that the petitioner was ordinarily residing in Village and Post Office Bahera, Sub-Tehsil Bhunga, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab, and was a migrated person. It was further observed that the benefit of reservation is linked with the caste status in the State of origin and that, in view of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, recognition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is State-specific. Consequently, the benefit of reservation is confined only in the State for which the notification has been issued. Placing reliance upon Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors, (1990) 3 SCC 130, Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate Vs. Union of India & Ors, and Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors, (2018) 10 SCC 312, as also certain office clarifications issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (Scheduled Castes Development Division) Government of India, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had been issued Bona Fide Himachali & Scheduled Caste certificate by the competent authority, his nomination for contesting the election from Ward No.6, Nagar Panchayat Amb, reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, could not have been rejected. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that though the father of the petitioner is a resident of the State of Punjab, but petitioner’s mother belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh and has inherited property in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The father and mother of the petitioner belong to the Kabirpanthi caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in both the States. Reliance was placed upon Naveen Kumari Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. & State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumari, (1994) 5 SCC 244 and Review Petition No. 47/2021 decided on 04.09.2021 to contend that once the father and mother of the petitioner belong to the same caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in both the States, and when the bona fide resident certificate and Scheduled Caste certificate had been issued to the petitioner in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Assistant Returning Officer-cum-Tehsildar could not have rejected petitioner’s nomination for contesting the election from Ward No.6, Nagar Panchayat Amb, reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidates.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 besides placing reliance upon Subeena Sabri vs. State of H.P. & Ors., 7CWP No.8043 of 2021 decided on 19.05.2022. has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition in view of Sec