IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8384 of 2010. Decided on: December 22, 2010. Chet Ram …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others. ……..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr.B.N. Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr.Onkar Jairath, counsel for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.4 by respondent No.3 in spite of he being, allegedly, encroacher on the government land. According to the judgment of this Court (Annexure P-2) passed in CWP No.7016 of 2010, titled Ashok Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 13.12.2010, respondent No.4, whose nomination papers were accepted, had filed a petition praying that it be declared that he was not an encroacher and his nomination papers may be directed to be accepted by the Returning Officer. It was clearly observed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment as under: “……it is for the Authorized Officer before whom the nomination papers for election have been filed to consider the documents as to whether the petitioner’s nomination should be accepted or not. On the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, this Court should not give a finding that he has not encroached upon the government land or that his nomination should be accepted. This question cannot be considered in the present writ petition and it is for the Authorized Officer before the election to consider and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner when the Election Petition is filed.” 2. Therefore, no findings had been given by this Court as to whether the petitioner’s nomination papers should be accepted or rejected 2 and accordingly, the decision was left to be taken by the Authorized Officer based on the documents produced by him. The election process has already started. Therefore, we cannot direct the Returning Officer to consider the question of rejection of the nomination papers of respondent No.4 at this stage, which plea can be taken by the petitioner by filing a properly constituted election petition, taking all the grounds available to him including the grounds taken in the present writ petition. 2. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition, which stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 22, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/pankaj) Judge.