The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to undertake the process for reservation and rotation of seats for municipalities, and the legality of the cancellation of the process undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officers.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - In Himachal Pradesh, in accordance with the time schedule prescribed by State Election Commission under Section 281 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 (herein after referred as the "Act"), reservation and rotation of seats of members of municipalities (Nagar Parishads and Nagar Panchayats) have been undertaken by the respective Deputy Commissioners in their Districts, as provided under Rule 10 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015 (herein after referred as "Election Rules").

2. Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur vide order dated 10.8.2020 had authorized Sub Divisional Officers (Civil) (SDMs) Hamirpur, Sujanpur, Nadaun and Barsar to undertake process for reservation and rotation of seats for the members of Nagar Parishads and Nagar Panchayats located in their respective Sub-Divisions and in pursuance thereto Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nadaun vide public notice dated 14.8.2020 (Annexure P-3) had notified the date i.e. 17.8.2020 for the said purpose and had undertaken the process on 17.8.2020 and declared roster of reservation of seats of members of Municipalities situated in his jurisdiction including Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun.

3. Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 27.8.2020 (Annexure P-2) had cancelled the process of determining roster, undertaken by Sub Divisional Officers (Civil) in District Hamirpur, on the ground that said process was not in conformity with Rule 10 of Election Rules and provisions of the Act and had decided to undertake the said process himself.

4. A separate notice dated 27.8.2020 under Rule 10 (8) of Election Rules (Annexure P-1) was also issued by Deputy Commissioner, notifying the date as 31.8.2020 for undertaking the process under Rule 10 of Election Rules.

5. On 29.8.2020, Department of Urban Development to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has issued clarification regarding reservation of wards for women vide communication dated 29.8.2020 (Annexure P-5), clarifying the provision and process to be undertaken for reservation of wards for women in Municipalities. Vide notification dated 29.8.2020 (Annexure P-6), State Election Commission of Himachal Pradesh has extended the date for reservation of wards till 5.9.2020.

6. Present petition has been preferred against cancellation of process by Deputy Commissioner which was undertaken by SDM, Nadaun in pursuance to the authorization dated 10.8.2020 by Deputy Commissioner and also assailing fresh process undertaken by Deputy Commissioner in pursuant to order dated 27.8.2020 (Annexure P-1) and clarification dated 29.8.2020 (Annexure P-5), referred supra, on the ground that action of Deputy Commissioner is arbitrary, malafide, contrary to law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is submitted by Mr.Anoop Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 10 of Election Rules, empowers the Deputy Commissioner to undertake the process for reservation and rotation of seats for the members of Nagar Parishads/Nagar Panchayats and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) is an Officer subordinate to him and thus in view of Section 18 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, SDO (Civil) is empowered to perform the function for which Deputy Commissioner is empowered under Rule 10 of Election Rules, particularly when, in present case, as Deputy Commissioner himself had authorized SDO (Civil) to undertake the process for reservation and rotation of seats for Municipalities. It is submitted that once exercise has been undertaken by SDO (Civil) validly, Deputy Commissioner cannot undo the said exercise unilaterally without any reason as, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, no reason has been assigned in order dated 27.8.2020, whereby process undertaken by SDO (Civil) has been cancelled. It is further submitted that even in the reply to the petition, no documents or any other material has been placed on record, justifying the action of Deputy Commissioner.

8. On behalf of petitioner, reliance has b