SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
VISHAL MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP/7780/2026



Petitioner Advocates:Vinay Mehta Hiaa Sharma ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 7780 of 2026

Decided on: 18.05.2026

Vishal Mehta …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P & others ..Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy

Advocate General, for

respondents No. 1 & 2.

o Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma,

Advocate, for respondent No.4.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

At the oral request made by learned counsel

for the petitioner, the State Election Commission through

its Secretary is impleaded as respondent No.4.

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.

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

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 20:07:07 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

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 Hfrom the

appearing respondents and without issuing notices to

respondent No.3/ the complainant.

4. Petitioner presented his nomination for

contesting election to the ofÏce 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.

Learnedh counsel for the petitioner pointed out to

Anngexure 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 OfÏcer/ respondent No.2

alongwith her objections.

Petitioner filed reply to the objections

(Annexure P-4). Considering the complaint, as also,

response thereto, respondent No.2 rejected petitioner’s

::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 20:07:07 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

nomination on 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) on the ground

that petitioner’s father had applied for regularization of

land mentioned therein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out

that petitioner had contested the elections for thHe 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 Sub-

Divisional OfÏcer (C), Rampur Bushahr, Tehsil Shimla on

19.07.2024 holding that petitioner therein (present

respondent No.3) had failed to establish any substantial

ground h for disqualification of respondent No.1 (present

petgitioner). The order dated 19.07.2024 also refers to file

No. 1085/2002 exhibited therein as PW5/A and inter alia

makes following observations:-

“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

sufÏcient documentary proof or credible

testimony to substantiate the claim that the

::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 20:07:07 :::CIS

#

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top