Kanto vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9366 HP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9366 HP
Judgement Date : 25 September, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kanto vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 25 September, 2025

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                            SHIMLA
                             CWP No.15561 of 2025
                             Decided on 25th September, 2025
    Kanto




                                                            .
                                               ...Petitioner





                             Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                              ...Respondents





    Coram

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
    1
        Whether approved for reporting? Yes




    For the petitioner:      Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate.

    For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
                   r    Advocate General, with Mr. Assistant
                        Advocate General.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned

Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

2. In the light of the prayer made in this petition with the

consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at this

stage.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached

this Court praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) "That the impugned orders dated 19.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to continue as Pradhan Gram Panchayat Dand till the enquiry proceedings are pending before

.

respondent No.4.

(ii) That respondent No.2 may very kindly be directed to decide the appeal pending before him filed under Section 148 of H.P.

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 titled as Kanto Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors. in time bound manner."

4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this

petition are that the petitioner, who is serving as Pradhan Gram

Panchayat Dand, Development Block Salooni, District Chamba,

H.P., was placed under suspension by the District Panchayat

Officer vide order dated 19.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the

petitioner is stated to have been filed an appeal before the

Deputy Commissioner Chamba i.e., the Appellate Authority. In

terms of Annexure P-8, the arguments in the case were heard on

21.08.2025 and the case was ordered to be listed for final

decision on 04.09.2025. This order is being reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference.

"Arguments were heard in detail as presented by the Adv. Madan Rawat for the appellant and by the official from the office of the DPO Panchayat the respondents in the case.

Accordingly, the case to come up for final decision on 04.09.2025."

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter on

04.09.2025, i.e., the date fixed for the pronouncement of the

order, rather than, announcing the judgment, for want of the

Deputy Commissioner in the seat as he had to proceed to

Bharmaur for the supervision of the relief and evacuation

operations on account of the disaster situation in Bharmaur sub-

division, District Chamba, H.P., the following order has been

passed:- r "The case was fixed for hearing today. However, due

to disaster situation in Bharmour sub-division closed by heavy rain, landslides and disruption during Manimahes Yatra, the Presiding Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner had to proceed to Bharmour for

supervision of relief and evacuation operations. Before leaving Ld. Presiding Officer conveyed that next date of hearing be fixed for 4.12.2025."

Reader to Deputy Commissioner"

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the

Deputy Commissioner was not available on 04.09.2025 for the

reasons mentioned in the application, then, the case should have

been simply listed on some other date, rather than posting it after

three months and that too by mentioning therein that the case

was listed on 04.09.2025 for hearing. He submits that the

petitioner being aggrieved by her suspension order cannot brook

delay in the decision of her appeal, because these tactics of not

.

deciding the case expeditiously defeat the very purpose of filing

the appeal, because the term of the petitioner otherwise is going

to end in the month of December, 2025. Accordingly, he prays

that appropriate order be passed in this petition so that the

petitioner does not suffer for the acts of omission of the

respondents. r

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this

Court is of the considered view that there is no doubt that the

trend that recently has been seen by this Court of suspending the

duly elected Pradhan of various Gram Panchayats in various part

of the State at the fag end of their tenure raises eyebrows. Not

only this, when the petitioner had preferred an appeal against her

being placed under suspension which suspension is dated

19.07.2025, it was expected from the Appellate Authority to

decide said appeal as decided expeditiously as possible in

accordance with law. Admittedly, this has not been done,

because the appeal is still pending and learned counsel for the

petitioner informs the Court that despite an application filed

praying for the stay of the suspension order no stay was granted.

8. Besides this, what further worries the Court is that

.

through the order passed by the Appellate Authority on

21.08.2025 demonstrates that arguments were heard on the said

date and the case was listed for final decision on 04.09.2025 but

the order that has been passed on 04.09.2025 that too by the

Reader of the Deputy Commissioner, who in law had no power to

pass any order, states that the case was listed for 04.09.2025 for

hearing which is totally contrary to the record. Not only this, this

order further contains that before leaving the Presiding Officer

conveyed that next date of hearing be fixed for 04.12.2025, which

if correct demonstrates the insensitiveness of the Presiding

Officer i.e., the Appellate Authority vis-à-vis the issue which he

was dealing i.e., an appeal filed by an elected member of a Gram

Panchayat against the order of her suspension.

9. Be that as it may, as now the next date is given as

04.12.2025 which date having been given by the Reader of the

Appellate Authority cannot be construed as any effective date

because on said date the Appellate Authority will have to further

issue notices to the parties, this petition is disposed of with the

direction that till the Appellate Authority decides the appeal in

accordance with law by following the procedure, which has to be

.

followed in deciding the appeal, the operation of the suspension

order dated 19.07.2025 is hereby stayed and the petitioner shall

be allowed to perform her duties as Pradhan of the Gram

Panchayat concerned. Pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, also stand disposed of.