HARINDER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/14980/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 14th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010818142026
e-Filing Number
12-05-2026
Filing Number
CWP/29676/2026
Filing Date
12-May-2026
Registration No
CWP/14980/2026
Registration Date
12-May-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda
Coram
Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda
Category
7 - ELECTION MATTERS ( 403 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
14-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HARINDER SINGH
Adv. AKSHAY CHADHA
-
2.Harinder Singh
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-
2.Harinder Singh
-
3.Director,
-
4.Commissioner
-
5.Deputy Commissioner
-
6.Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Electoral Registration Officer
-
7.Tehsildar cum Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Batala
-
8.State Election Commissioner
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-May-2026
Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,mr. Justice Deepak ManchandaView PDF
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed two writ petitions challenging the finalization of the voter list for Municipal Corporation Batala elections scheduled for May 26, 2026. The court held that since the petitioners conceded they suffered no personal prejudice regarding their own votes and were not filing a public interest petition, they lacked standing to challenge alleged irregularities affecting other residents. The court ruled that voter list grievances are personal to each resident and only affected individuals can seek remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/14980/2026
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed two writ petitions challenging the finalization of the voter list for Municipal Corporation Batala elections scheduled for May 26, 2026. The court held that since the petitioners conceded they suffered no personal prejudice regarding their own votes and were not filing a public interest petition, they lacked standing to challenge alleged irregularities affecting other residents. The court ruled that voter list grievances are personal to each resident and only affected individuals can seek remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts