Vikesh Zinta vs State of H.P. - 2026 Supreme(HP) 112

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA
Vikesh Zinta – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik and Mr. Bheeshamlata, Advocates, present in person and Mr. Tarun Mehta, Ajay Sipahiya & Mr. Shivam Prashar, Advocates, Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

CWPIL No.32 of 2026

Notice. Mr. Sushant Keprate, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively and seeks 10 weeks time to file reply.

Reply, as prayed, be filed within 10 weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List for consideration on 22.06.2026, as prayed.

CMP No. 6586 of 2026

Notice and reply in aforesaid terms.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that action of respondents/State in issuing Notification dated 30.3.2026 conferring the powers upon the Deputy Commissioner to change the roster of office bearers of Panchayats upto 5% of total offices in his jurisdiction suffer procedural ultra- virus and substantive ultra-vires and further the action of State is also required to be interferred with because Executive cannot be handed over power to change the roster contrary to the provisions of Constitution as well as Statute enacted in furtherance to the Constitutional provisions and Rules framed thereunder.

3. It has been submitted that Article 243D of the Constitution and Section 125 of H.P. Pa