Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/6270/2026 of MADAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 21 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6270 of 2026 Decided on : 21.09.2026 Madan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6270 of 2026 Decided on : 21.09.2026 Madan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sarthak Upadhaya, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Surender Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5 Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
(Oral
)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
(i) To quash and set-aside Sub Rule 8-A of Rule 28, Sub-Rule 8-A of Rule 87, Sub Rule 8-A of Rule 88 and Sub-Rule 8-A of Rule 89 together with notification dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) for the reason that same are contrary to the provision of Section 125 of the Act and the spirit of Article 243D of the Constitution of India;
(ii) Alternatively, in case Sub-Rule 8-A of Rule 28, Sub Rule 8-A of Rule 87 Sub Rule 8-A of Rule 88 and Sub-Rule 8-A of Rule 89 together with notification dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) are found legal and valid then the Notification dated 07.04.2026 together with the Corrigendum dated 14.04.2026 i.e. Annexure P-1( Colly) qua the respondent No.4 may be quashed and set aside because this is in violation of Sub-Rule 8-A of Rule 28 red with Notification dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure P-5).
(iii) To direct the respondent No.2 to either reserve the seat of Pradhan for SC or to keep it unreserved so that Male Electors of the respondent No.4 can also participate in the Election for the seat of Pradhan.
2. On account of subsequent developments, which have been taken in the interregnum, which also include the holding of the Election for the Gram Panchayat concerned, this petition is closed without adjudication on the issue on merits, but with the observation that the issue raised herein by the petitioner has been kept open for the adjudication in future in case the circumstances so arise. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge September 21, 2026 (meera)