SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA, JJ.
Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 1791 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Prem Chand Verma, Varun Thakur, Aakash Thakur
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Raj Negi

Panchayat reorganization must consider actual contiguity, distance, population; arbitrary decisions based on wrong facts/misrepresented distances are amenable to judicial review and liable to be quashed.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 3(2) - Reorganization of Gram Panchayats - Empowers alteration, merger, inclusion/exclusion of areas after inviting objections/suggestions - Decision must be based on administrative convenience, geographical considerations, public interest, not mechanical - Factors like contiguity, distance, population, personal relations relevant - Impugned notification excluding village from one panchayat and including in another set aside as manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational - Wrong distance calculation (ignoring direct panchayat road of 2.5 km between contiguous villages, using circuitous 12-14 km route), ignoring objections, outdated resolutions, disproportionate population addition - Judicial review permissible in delimitation/reorganization if arbitrary, despite Article 329 bar, to check constitutional values. (Paras 16, 34-39)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review in election/delimitation process - Not barred completely; intervention allowed if mala fide, arbitrary; not to delay elections but to rectify grave injustice before finalization. (Paras 33-34)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged notification reorganizing panchayats by excluding their village from contiguous panchayat (2-3 km via direct panchayat road) and including in distant one (6 km), claiming objections ignored/not decided, distances misrepresented in old resolutions/applications (claiming 14 km vs actual 2-3 km), population mismatch (village 280 added to larger panchayat of 4500 from smaller 1500), interwoven relations/business. Respondents claimed process followed, based on prior requests, no timely objections; delimitation separate.

Findings of Court:
Impugned reorganization notification quashed to extent of village's exclusion/inclusion; consequential delimitation also set aside; respondents directed to issue fresh notification on panchayats' constitution/delimitation within 5 days.

Issues: Whether reorganization under Section 3(2) valid despite ignored objections, factual errors on distance/contiguity/population; scope of judicial review in ongoing delimitation/reorganization amid election timeline.

Ratio Decidendi: Reorganization irrational where direct short distance/contiguity ignored for longer route, objections unaddressed, disproportionate population shift; arbitrary exercise amenable to judicial review pre-finalization if manifestly contrary to facts/constitutional principles.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge village's panchayat inclusion despite objections (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. court proceedings clarify distances and objections (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. reorganization followed statutory process, prior resolutions (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. outdated resolutions, misrepresented distances, population irrelevant (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. challenge reorganization before delimitation finalizes (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. judicial review permitted for arbitrary delimitation (Para 33 , 34)
7. reorganization arbitrary ignoring contiguity, distance, population (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. quash notification, direct fresh delimitation (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioners, namely Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog and Mahila Mandal of Village Manlog-Badog, have preferred present petition against inclusion of Village Manlog Badog in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat, District Solan, after exclusion of the said village from Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog vide notification dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-3).

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, by issuing notification dated 18.12.2025, proposing reorganization/merger of Panchayats, objections and suggestions from the residents of the concerned Gram Panchayats were invited, authorizing Deputy Commissioner, Solan to receive objections and suggestions from the public and to submit final recommendations after considering the same. The proposal for inclusion of Village Manlog Badog in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat after exclusion of the same from Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog was opposed by the residents of Manlog Badog by submitting objections dated 30.12.2025 on 31.12.2025 to the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, with copies thereof to the District Panchayat Adhikari and Deputy Commissioner, Solan, stating that few years ago, such proposal had been accepted by some villagers, but the present scenario is completely different and most of the villagers are not interested in inclusion of Manlog Badog in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat, as relations and day-to-day business of residents of Village Manlog Badog are interwoven with residents of Village Hanuman Badog, as both villages are contiguous. Attention of the authorities was also invited to the application submitted by residents of Gram Panchayat Darlaghat opposing the inclusion of Manlog Badog in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat.

3. Nothing was heard with respect to the aforesaid objections. Instead, the respondents issued impugned notification dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-3), notifying inclusion of Village Manlog Badog in Gram Panchayat Darlaghat after its exclusion from Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog.

4. Immediately after issuance of the notification dated 27.01.2026, residents of Manlog Badog contacted Up-Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog, who issued certificate/communication dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), highlighting that day-to-day affairs of the residents of Village Manlog Badog were connected with residents of Village Hanuman Badog. It was further stated that Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog was about 2-3 km from Village Manlog Badog, whereas Gram Panchayat Darlaghat was located about 6-7 km away. Therefore, request was made to keep Village Manlog Badog in Gram Panchayat Hanuman Badog.

5. Thereafter, Authorized Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Kunihar, District Solan, issued notification dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) notifying determination/delimitation of seats of Gram Panchayats Sehrol, Badog, Hanuman Badog and Darlaghat situated in Development Block Kunihar and inviting objections from the public regarding delimitation proposal of constituencies and wards within one week from the date of publication of the notice.

6. On 03.02.2026, residents of Village Manlog Badog submitted their objections on the same lines as were submitted earlier against notification of reorganization/merger dated 18.12.2025.

7. Resolutions au

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top