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

2025 Supreme(HP) 1774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA, JJ.
Devinder Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 13810 of 2025
Decided On : 05-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shrawan Dogra, Tejasvi Dogra
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Yashwardhan Chauhan, Ramakant Sharma

Amendment to delimitation rule mandating larger units without boundary transgression quashed as manifestly arbitrary, violating uniform population ratio in panchayat constituencies and constitutional mandate.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Part IX - Articles 243B, 243C, 243O - Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 89(2), 182, 183, 186 - Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 - Rule 9(2) - Amendment substituting 'Sabha area' with 'Panchayat Samiti area' as unit for delimitation of territorial constituencies of district level panchayat, prohibiting transgression of Panchayat Samiti boundaries - Held manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional as it defeats uniform population ratio mandate 'so far as practicable', causes huge population disparities among constituencies (e.g., ranging 6,000-38,000), not laid before Legislative Assembly violating rule-making procedure, no nexus with public interest but administrative convenience of counting sheets - Subsequent delimitation notifications and appellate order quashed for non-application of mind, absence of speaking order, perversity - Judicial review not barred under Article 243O where manifest arbitrariness or constitutional violation shown, especially pre-election stage. (Paras 32-37, 41-54, 61-67)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope in delimitation - Not absolute bar under Article 243O or statutory equivalent if action arbitrary, mala fide or violative of constitutional mandate - Courts can intervene pre-election to rectify manifest illegality without delaying polls. (Paras 59-66)

(C) Natural Justice - Objections to delimitation - Competent authority must pass speaking order; mechanical rejection without reasons invalid. (Paras 69-70)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged amendment to delimitation rule changing unit from smaller Sabha areas to larger Panchayat Samiti areas without transgression, leading to draft and final notifications creating wards with grossly unequal populations; objections rejected without speaking order, appeal dismissed perversely claiming speaking order existed.

Findings of Court:
Amendment and notifications quashed; fresh delimitation directed per unamended rule; proposed further amendment via proviso kept open.

Issues: Constitutionality of rule amendment conflicting with population ratio; procedural infirmities (non-laying before Assembly, no speaking order); applicability of electoral bar to judicial review; arbitrariness in delimitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule amendment irrational as it rigidifies larger units preventing population balancing, manifestly violates 'so far as practicable' uniform ratio, prioritizes administrative ease over constitutional object; subordinate legislation testable for arbitrariness under Article 14; judicial review pierces bar for pre-poll constitutional flaws. Result : Writ petition allowed; impugned amendment, notifications and appellate order quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. delimitation notifications and petitioner's objections chronology. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. government proposals address rule 9(2) difficulties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. amendment violates constitutional population ratio mandate. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. amendment ensures administrative convenience and due process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. panchayat delimitation statutory and constitutional provisions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. amended rule impedes equal population ratio. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. manifest arbitrariness invalidates subordinate legislation. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
8. rule causes irrational population disparities in wards. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
9. judicial review permitted for arbitrary delimitation. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
10. no election bar allows court intervention. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
11. amendment quashed as arbitrary and unconstitutional. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioner, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has filed present petition seeking following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the amendment of Rule 9(2) of the Election Rules notified on 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) and final notification of the amended Election Rules as published in Rajpatra (E-Gazette) on 15.02.2025, notification dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), notification dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-7), notification dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) may be quashed and set aside;
(ii) That the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.4 in appeal may also be quashed and set aside;
(iii) That the respondents may be directed to hold elections for Zila Parishad Shimla on the basis of delimitation of constituencies already existing before the above amendment of Election Rules, and to comply with the mandate of the Constitution withing the time frame.”

2. Vide notification dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), objections/suggestions were invited by publishing proposed amendment in Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (in short ‘Election Rules’), including proposal for amendment in Rule 9(2) of Election Rules. Proposed amendment in Election Rules was notified vide Notification dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-5). All amendments made in the Election Rules, except amendment in Rule 9(2) of Election Rules, were enforced from 15.02.2025, however, amendment in Rule 9(2) of Election Rules was given effect w.e.f. 01.05.2025 vide Notification dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-6).

3. Vide Notification dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-7), draft of delimitation of territorial constituencies (Wards) of Zila Parishad, Shimla, was notified, inviting objections on or before 23.05.2025, if any, from public at large.

4. Petitioner preferred objections (Annexure P-8) on 22.05.2025 to Notifications dated 28.01.2025, 11.02.2025, 21.02.2025, 03.05.2025 and 17.05.2025 issued regarding delimitation of Wards of Zila Parishad in District Shimla.

5. Respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, vide Notification dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-9), notified the final delimitation of territorial constituencies (Wards) of Zila Parishad, Shimla, with observation that said finalization was done after taking into consideration objections and suggestions received after publication of draft Notification dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-7).

6. On 06.06.2025, by submitting an application (Annexure P- 10) to District Panchayat Officer, Shimla, petitioner requested to supply copy of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, with respect to the objections filed by the petitioner and to supply the copy of final Notification.

7. Superintendent Grade-II of office of District Panchayat Officer, Shimla, in response to the application filed by the petitioner, supplied a copy of the final Notification with observation that, however, no

































































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