Photo used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, May 8
Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday set aside the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of Solan Municipal Corporation councillor candidate Piyush Garg and allowed him to contest the election from Ward No. 3.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua passed the order while allowing a civil writ petition filed by Piyush Garg, whose nomination papers had been rejected on May 4 by the Assistant Returning Officer-cum-SDM, Solan, on allegations of encroachment over government land.
Senior counsel of HC advocate Sudhir Thakur told Himachal Scape that objections against Garg’s candidature were raised on the basis of a 2014 demarcation report alleging encroachment by an educational society linked to his family. The Returning Officer had held that Garg was a “beneficiary of encroachment” under Section 8(2)(l) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and consequently disqualified him from contesting the election.
During the hearing, senior counsel Mr Thakur appearing for the petitioner argued that the alleged encroachment proceedings had remained pending for years and no final adjudication declaring the petitioner an encroacher had ever been made. The petitioner also contended that his request for fresh demarcation of the land was never properly considered by the authorities.
Also Read
HC stays Himachal Govt directive barring ASHA workers from contesting Panchayat polls
The High Court observed that the demarcation proceedings initiated in 2014 were not concluded in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and principles of natural justice. The court noted that the Assistant Collector had confirmed the demarcation report in January 2024 merely because the file was old and without hearing the affected parties.
Justice Dua held that such an order could not legally establish encroachment so as to attract disqualification under the Municipal Corporation Act. The court further observed that the Returning Officer wrongly relied upon provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act instead of the Municipal Corporation Act while rejecting the nomination.
Quashing the May 4 order, the High Court restored the petitioner’s candidature and directed that the election schedule notified by the State Election Commission should not be disturbed.
About the Author
