Recently, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh considered a challenge to the inclusion of certain Gram Panchayats within the limits of a newly constituted Nagar Panchayat in District Bilaspur, examining whether the statutory procedure governing municipal reorganisation had been duly followed.
The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein residents of Gram Panchayats Kuthela and Manjhed questioned the decision of the State Government to merge their Panchayats into Nagar Panchayat Swarghat under the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994. The petitioners asserted that objections opposing the proposed merger were submitted within the prescribed period as contemplated under the statutory scheme. Despite the objections being placed on record, the State proceeded to finalise the reorganisation of the municipal limits without first deciding the objections through a formal adjudicatory process.
The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the mandatory requirement of considering objections was reduced to a mere formality, as no reasoned and speaking order was passed by the competent authority, namely the Secretary (Urban Development). It was argued that such action violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory framework of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994.
The State contended that the objections had been taken note of during the administrative process and that once the proposal received approval from the Council of Ministers and culminated in a final notification, the objections could not be reopened unless the notification itself was interfered with by the Court.
The Court observed that although the objections were reflected in the official record and proposal documents, the competent authority had failed to pass any independent, reasoned, or speaking order dealing with the objections. The Court noted that an incorrect impression was conveyed to the Council of Ministers that the objections stood decided, forming the basis for approval of the proposal.
Rejecting the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, the Court held that judicial review is not completely barred under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India where the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary or procedurally defective. The Court also took note of the interplay between powers exercised under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, and the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, including orders issued under Section 24(e) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The High Court set aside the impugned notification and directed the competent authority under the Urban Development Department to reconsider the objections by passing a reasoned and speaking order after granting personal hearing to the petitioners. The authority was further directed to proceed thereafter in accordance with law.
Case Title: Bal Krishnan & others v/s State of H.P. and others
Case No.: CWP No.2906 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr Justice Romesh Verma
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Ashok Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Advocate General Anup Rattan with Additional Advocates General Ramakant Sharma and Pawan Kumar Nadda.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
