Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
Rattan Lal & ors - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & ors - Respondents
CWP No. 6113 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 409, 243Q , 14, 21, 48A , 226/227 and 243O - Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 - Sections 3 and 4 - U. P. Town Area Act, 1914 - Section 3 - Whether before or after the commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003 shall hold office during pleasure of the State Government - Whether exercise of power under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is administrative or legislative in character because scope of judicial review in both cases would be entirely different - Whether impugned action is a legislative action or an executive action - Whether discretion conferred upon the statutory authority had been property exercised; - Whether exercise of such discretion is in consonance with the provisions of the Act - Whether while taking such action, the executive government had taken into consideration the purport and object of the Act - Whether the same subserved other relevant factors which would affect the public in large - Whether the principles of sustainable development which have become part of our constitutional law have been taken into consideration - Whether in arriving at such a decision, both substantive due process and procedural due process had been complied with - Deputy Commissioner, Solan, constituted a committee headed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Solan, to scrutinize the areas to be included in Municipal Council - residents of Basal area preferred objections stating therein that most of their land in Mauza Basal is fertile, over which they have been carrying on agricultural pursuits to earn their livelih – Held, petitioner has not been able to demonstrate or prove that declaration of area, subject matter of the writ petition, into Municipal Corporation is either not in public interest or this decision has not been taken by the Government in larger interest of inhabitants of the area, but the same has been taken by the State Government to help a few individuals or the declaration has not been done in accordance with constitutional requirement coupled with statutory requirements of the Act - Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:
(ii) that a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent No.1 to issue notification to exclude the area of the petitioners comprised in Khasra numbers 1327, 1331, 1332, 1334, 1335, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380 and 1382 i.e. total 15 khasra numbers of Muhal Basal, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. from its inclusion in Municipal Corporation, Solan, District Solan, H.P. and justice be done.
2. On 8.9.2020, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, constituted a committee headed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Solan, to scrutinize the areas to be included in Municipal Council, Solan, for its up gradation in light of the objections raised by Gramin Sangharash Samiti.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan, vide letter No. Acctts (LFA) VIII2/ 2026/M. Corp.I9978 dated 27.5.2020 submitted justifications to the Director, Urban Development for including eight Gram Panchayats viz. Seri, Basal, Salogra, Parag, Shamti, Saproon, Anji and Kothon, in the existing area of M.C. Solan. The government thereafter vide notification dated 24.8.2020 proposed to include the areas as specified in the letter dated 27.5.2020 and also called for the objections/suggestions from the general public.
4. On 21.9.2020, residents of Basal area preferred objections stating therein that most of their land in Mauza Basal is fertile, over which they have been carrying on agricultural pursuits to earn their livelihood. On 1.10.2020, residents of area Basal again preferred objections reiterating their earlier stand and requested for exclusion of their area from the Municipal Council limits of Solan.
5. After receipt of objections, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on 12.10.2020, was assigned task to look into the objections preferred by the residents of Basal area and Gramin Sanghrash Samiti. According to the petitioners, the respondents without taking into consideration the aforesaid objections issued final notification dated 28.10.2020 to upgrade Municipal Council, Solan into Municipal Corporation, Solan. The petitioners again preferred objections/representation to exclude their Khasra numbers from the limits of Municipal Corporation, Solan vide representation dated 9.11.2020, which was followed by reminder dated 27.11.2020, however the same has not been decided till date constraining the petitioners to file the instant petition.
6. Even though no formal reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, however, in the instructions so supplied to the Court, it has been stated as under:-
That the Tehsildar, Solan, along with entire revenue field staff has personally visited the areas, as directed by the Committee which was formed by the Deputy Commission, which were proposed to be included in the Municipal Corporation Solan. On visit it was found that certaina area of Gram Panchayat Basal (two which the petitioner Sh. Rattan Lal belongs) was already touching the boundaries of Municipal Council Solan. Further, this Panchayat mostly consists of urbanized area, including HIMUDA colony.
That the population of Municipal Council Solan was 39256 persons as per 201
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
