SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice. Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3 and respondent No.2, respectively. In view of nature of order being passed, no notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2.) The petitioner contested the elections for the post of Member, Block Development Committee from Ward No.5- Pokhi, Block Karsog, District Mandi. The elections were held on 21.01.2021 and the result was declared on 22.01.2021. The petitioner remained unsuccessful. He has preferred the instant writ petition for the following substantive relief:-

(3.) The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable at all as an efficacious and alternate remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance under the provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Section 162 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act provides that no election under the Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the chapter and Section 175 of the Act enumerates the grounds for declaring election to be void. The above sections run as under: