AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral)—At the oral request of the learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, The State Election Commission, Himachal Pradesh, is arrayed as party-respondent, shall figure as respondent No. 5 in the array of respondents. Registry to carry out necessary entries in the cause title.
It is contended that the writ petitioner had filed objection for rejection of the candidature of respondent No. 4, but respondent No. 3 has wrongly rejected the objection and allowed respondent No. 4 to contest the election.
The dispute raised is not within the domain of this Court in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment and order, dated 15.12.2015, made by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 4366 of 2015, titled as Bal Krishan and others v. State of H.P. and others, being the lead case. However, an alternative remedy is available with the writ petitioner.
Having said so, the writ petition is dismissed along with all pending applications. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy at appropriate stage.