[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 18 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 936 of 2025
Decided on : 18.12.2025
.
Pawan Kumar & others ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents.
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
rt
For the petitioners : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, has filed present petition seeking
following substantive reliefs:-
"(A) That the Notifications dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure P-7, whereby
the majority of the area of the Gram Panchayat, Development Block
Nadaun, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur has been merged with
the Municipal Council, Nadaun may kindly be quashed and set
aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to hear the
objections of the residents of the area including the petitioners and
appreciated their hardships, in the interest of justice.
2. From perusal of the reply filed to the petition and also
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
instructions dated 12.12.2025 placed on record on behalf of the
respondents/State during pendency of the petition, alongwith the
.
documents, it is apparent that, as a matter of fact, the objections,
preferred by the residents, were though recorded in the proceedings
as well as the chart prepared for proposal of creation of Municipal
Council, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., however, concerned
of
Competent Authority i.e. Secretary (Urban Development) to the
Government of H.P. has not passed any reasoned and speaking
order at any point of time, rather had submitted the objections
rt
alongwith other documents for consideration of Council of Ministers,
purporting the same as decided in the memorandum to be placed
before the Council of Ministers.
3. On perusal of material placed before Council of
Ministers, it appears that an impression was created that objection
had been considered and decided by the Competent Authority and on
the basis of the said information, the proposal placed before the
Council of Ministers for issuance of final notification, was approved.
4. As the foundation, on the basis of which Council of
Ministers had approved the proposal of issuance of final notification,
was incorrect and contrary to the record, therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that matter requires reconsideration by the
Competent Authority i.e. Secretary (Urban Development) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh, for passing a reasoned and
speaking order, dealing with the objections raised by the residents of
.
the area proposed to be merged/ included in the Municipal Council,
Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., based on the recommendations of
the Field Staff including the concerned Deputy Commissioner.
5. Today, under instructions, learned Advocate General
of
has submitted that in view of issuance of final Notification dated
20.12.2024, it would not be possible for the concerned authority to
recall or withdraw the notification suo moto and unless Notification
rt
dated 20.12.2024, Annexure P-7, is quashed and set-aside by the
Court, it is not possible for the concerned authority to consider or
reconsider the objections of the petitioner, despite the fact that these
objections were preferred well within time.
6. Recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in
Kishorchandra Chhhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(2024) 13 SCC 237, is relevant to be referred to deal with the
objections raised by the respondents, wherein after taking into
consideration earlier judgments of the Apex Court titled as Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat
& Ors., (2020) 6 SCC 548 and State of Goa and Anr. vs. Fouziya
Imtiaz Shaikh & Anr., (2021) 8 SCC 401, it has been held as under:-
"5. We, however, do not approve the view taken by the High
Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in
exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely
insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Although Article 329 undeniably
restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of any law relating
to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, it cannot be construed to have imposed for every
.
action of delimitation exercise. If judicial intervention is deemed
completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their
grievances, leaving them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation
Commission. As a constitutional court and guardian of public
interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court's
duties and the principle of separation of powers.
6. This understanding is supported by a three-judge bench
decision of this Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of
T.N., (2020) 6 SCC 548, para 14, where the Court was called upon
of
to interpret Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which
mirror the aforementioned Article 329. Rejecting the contention that
these provisions place a complete bar on judicial intervention, it
waw noted that a constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating
the elections or when a case for mala fide or arbitrary exercise of
rt
power is made out. Using this, the Court directed delimitation to be
conducted for nine new districts. Recently, a three-judge bench of
this Court in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC
401, para 67, affirmed the ratio of the above-cited decision while
discussing principles on Article 329(a), and rejected the contention
which sought to prove it as per incuriam.
7. Therefore, while the Courts shall always be guided by the
settled principles regarding scope, ambit and limitations on the
exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is nothing
that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed by
Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution. If
the order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the
constitutional values, the Court can grant the appropriate remedy to
rectify the situation.
8. In order to prove that any kind of judicial intervention is fully
prohibited, the respondents relied upon a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation
Commission and others, 1966 SCC Online SC 12. A closer
examination of the aforementioned case, however, would show that
the Court in that case restricted judicial intervention when the same
would unnecessarily delay the election process. This is writ large
from the following paragraph, where the Court explicated the reason
behind adopting the hands-off approach:
"20. In our view, therefore, the objection to the
delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained
by the Commission before the date specified. Once
the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8
and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the
Official Gazettes of the States concerned, these
matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law.
There seems to be very good reason behind such a
provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9
were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that
any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election
indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the
constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of the
Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the
.
Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9
published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as
law which was not to be questioned in any court."
[emphasis supplied]
9. Hence, the aforementioned judgement does not support the
respondents' contention regarding complete restriction on judicial
review. A constitutional court can undertake the exercise of judicial
review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.
of
10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, and para 3 of
the impugned judgment--to the extent it held that there is a bar to
challenge the order of delimitation of constituencies is set aside.
The appellant, if so advised, may approach the High Court keeping
in view the subsequent events. However, at present, no ground has
rt
been made out to interfere with the exercise of delimitation of
constituencies and consequential reservation thereof, which was
undertaken in the year 2006."
7. In present case, though Election Commission of
Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 17.11.2025 in exercise of
powers vested in it under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution
read with enabling Sections of Panchayati Raj Act, Himachal Pradesh
Municipal Act and Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act read
with first proviso of Clause 2(1) of Himachal Pradesh Panchayat and
Municipal Model Code of Conduct, 2020, has enforced Clause 12(1)
of Model Code of Conduct, 2020, throughout the State of Himachal
Pradesh, whereby structure, classification and area of Panchayats
and Municipalities has been prohibited to be altered after issuance of
the notification till the election process is over, however, from the
notification dated 28.11.2025 issued by Department of Rural
Development of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it is apparent
that delimitation of Panchayats has not been finalized yet, and is,
.
rather going on as vide this notification State of Himachal Pradesh
has reorganized Development Block Bamson and Hamirpur by
transferring/receiving Gram Panchayats in District Hamirpur, despite
issuance of notification dated 17.11.2025 by the State Election
of
Commission. It is apt to record that Development Block is a unit for
which a Panchayat Samiti is constituted. A tug of war is going on
between State Election Commission and the Government, as it is
rt
claimed by the Government that for enforcement of order dated
08.10.2025 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh through
Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Executive Committee, SDMA,
H.P., in exercise of power conferred under Section 24(e) of Disaster
Management Act, 2005, whereby it has been ordered that elections to
the Panchayati Raj Institutions will be held only after restoration of
proper connectivity throughout the State, so that no inconvenience is
caused to the general public as well as the polling personnel, and
further no voter loses his right to vote because of road connectivity
issues. The State Election Commission cannot thrust upon its
decision by issuing notification dated 17.11.2025.
8. Ratio laid down in aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court
is also applicable to the present case. From the pronouncements
referred supra and the status of delimitation and other ground realities
referred supra, the objections with regard to prohibition under Article
.
243ZG of the Constitution, are not sustainable and accordingly
rejected.
9. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Notification dated 20.12.2024, Annexure P-7 is quashed and set-
of
aside.
10. Accordingly, respondents, especially, Secretary Urban
rt
Development is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner
and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 10.01.2026 by
passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing personal
hearing to the petitioner before himself or through Director Urban
Development, if desired so.
11. Needless to say that personal hearing shall be provided
one or two representatives of joint objectors.
12. Thereafter, the process shall be taken to its logical ends
as expeditiously as possible as per law applicable.
13. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the
pending application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Romesh Verma)
.
Judge.
18th December, 2025
(Nisha)
of
rt
