2026 Supreme(HP) 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA, JJ.
Mahila Mandal of Village Umri and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
CWP Nos. 3193, 3286, 3287, 3452, 3547, 3635, 3640, 3707, 3726, 3953, 4021, 4040, 4047 of 2026
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Delimitation after panchayat reorganization mandates strict adherence to 7-day objection and appeal timelines; curtailment to 3 days and rushed processes invalid; conduct elections using prior valid delimitation.

Headnote:(A) HP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 3, 124 - HP Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 - Rules 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 - Constitution of India - Articles 226, 243K, 243O, 243ZG - Panchayati Raj Institutions - Reorganization, bifurcation and delimitation of Gram Panchayats - Procedure under Act and Rules mandatory; 7 days for objections (Rule 5), 7 days for disposal (Rule 6), 10 days appeal period (Rule 10) cannot be curtailed to 3 days; processes initiated after Supreme Court order dated 13.02.2026 with squeezed timelines invalid as glaring illegality, not mere irregularity; State Election Commission relaxation in Model Code of Conduct Clause 12.1 does not exempt statutory compliance; delimitation quashed where rules violated; elections on prior valid delimitation and roster. (Paras 54, 67-71, 74)

(B) Elections to Panchayats - Timelines - Creation/bifurcation/reorganization not to be initiated after 9 months prior to term expiry; must complete 6 months before to allow delimitation and roster; post-freeze actions under Model Code violative unless relaxed, but rules unchanged; judicial review available pre-election process commencement. (Paras 36-52, 59-63, 74)

(C) Reservation Roster - Fresh allocation on changed population; rotation maximized; notify 3 months pre-election process. (Paras 35, 74)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions challenging notifications for bifurcation/reorganization of Gram Panchayats and resultant delimitation with 3-day objection periods, post-delimitation commencement and Model Code freeze, ignoring State Election Commission advice and Supreme Court timelines for completing processes by 31.03.2026 and elections by 31.05.2026; objections not adjudicated with reasons; prejudice to residents.

Findings of Court:
Impugned reorganizations/delimitation where procedure/timelines violated not basis for roster/elections; use prior status; finalize roster by 7th April 2026; future guidelines issued for timely processes.

Issues: Validity of curtailed objection periods and rushed delimitation post-Supreme Court order; effect of Model Code relaxation; adherence to statutory timelines amid election deadlines; scope of judicial review pre-election notification.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory rules on delimitation mandatory ('shall'); late initiation with impossible timelines arbitrary/illegal under Article 14; no amendment to rules; prior court observations affirm pendency no ground to stall elections; State created self-mess by hasty actions; Fouziya Imtiaz principles allow pre-process intervention.

Result: Petitions disposed; impugned delimitation quashed; elections/roster on prior panchayat status; directions for future compliance.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge panchayat bifurcation procedures (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondents justify reorganization based on resolutions (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. notifications issued too late for delimitation compliance (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. state defends shortened timelines due to sc deadlines (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. prior court orders mandate timely election processes (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. sec model code freezes panchayat boundaries (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
7. relaxation limited to code, not statutory rules (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
8. judicial review permissible pre-election for arbitrariness (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
9. state's late actions create procedural mess (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
10. state conduct manifestly arbitrary, violates article 14 (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
11. election rules timelines mandatory, not curtailable (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
12. quash invalid delimitations; use prior panchayat status (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. All these petitions for involvement of common question of law and similar facts, are being decided together by this judgment.

CWP No. 3547 of 2026

2. Petitioners in this petition, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have approached this Court against reorganization/division/ bifurcation of Gram Panchayat, Shingla, District Shimla, into two Panchayats, namely Gram Panchayat Shingla and Gram Panchayat Kalna, on the ground that their village Umri has been wrongly included in Gram Panchayat Kalna, which will cause inconvenience to the residents of Village Umri.

3. Apart from other grounds based on the factual matrix, challenge has also been laid to notification creating or reorganizing new Gram Panchayat and delimitation thereof on the ground that action of the respondent-State is vitiated due to non-publication and improper distribution of draft notification dated 10.03.2026. The time period of three days provided for filing objections to the proposal of delimitation, notified vide notification dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-4), is unreasonable and violative of settled principles of justice. State Election Commission, vide communication dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-8), had advised the respondents to refrain from creating or reorganizing new Panchayats of Gram Sabha area after commencement of delimitation process, in view of directions issued by the Apex Court for completion of Panchayati Raj Elections before 31.05.2026, but despite that impugned notifications have been issued which are creating legal complications in the delimitation process.

4. The petition has also been filed on the ground that objections preferred on behalf of residents of Umri on 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) have not been decided by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The respondents have proceeded further arbitrarily on the basis of wrong assumptions and presumptions without taking care of factual matrix, thereby causing inconvenience to the petitioners and other residents of Village Umri.

5. As per reply filed to the petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, received a resolution dated 10.12.2024, passed unanimously by approximately 242 members of Gram Panchayat, resolving for bifurcation and reorganization of Gram Panchayat Shingla, on account of population of Gram Panchayat, Shingla, exceeding 3200, extensive and scattered geographical conditions, and certain villages being located at distance of nearly 10 kilometers from Panchayat Bhawan, causing administrative inconvenience.

6. It is further case of the respondents that representations were also received from Mahila Mandal, Nogli, dated 01.01.2025 and Yuvak Mandal, Nogli, dated 27.12.2024, reiterating the demand for bifurcation and constitution of new Panchayat.

7. It has been further case of the respondents that, in continuation of statutory and administrative process, Deputy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document