Notification for municipal area inclusion quashed for lack of reasoned order on objections by competent authority; judicial review available despite delimitation bars if process arbitrary or based on incorrect premises. (22 words)

Judgment :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

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

“(i) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the decision making process before this Hon’ble Court regarding inclusion of the petitioners area concerned in the Municipal Council Jawalamukhi; and/or

(ii) A writ of certiorari be issued to quash and set-aside the said impugned notification i.e. Annexure P-5 dated 23.12.2024, qua part of ward of Saleter or/ and

(iii) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents from refraining from applying impugned notification i.e. Annexure P-5 dated 23.12.2024, to part of ward of Saletar; and /or.

2. From perusal of the reply filed to the petition and also instructions dated 12.12.2025 placed on record on behalf of the respondents/State during pendency of the petition, alongwith the documents, it is apparent that, as a matter of fact, the objections, preferred by the residents, were though recorded in the proceedings as well as the chart prepared for proposal of inclusion of the petitioners area concerned in the Municipal Council Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. however, concerned Competent Authority i.e. Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of H.P. has not passed any reasoned and speaking order at any point of time, rather had submitted the objections alongwith other documents for consideration of Council of Ministers, purporting the same as decided in the memorandum to be placed before the Council of Ministers.

3. On perusal of material placed before Council of Ministers, it appears that an impression was created that objection had been considered and decided by the Competent Authority and on the basis of the said information, the proposal placed before the Council of Ministers for issuance of final notification, was approved.

4. As the foundation, on the basis of which Council of Ministers had approved the proposal of issuance of final notification, was incorrect and contrary to the record, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that matter requires reconsideration by the Competent Authority i.e. Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for passing a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with the objections raised by the residents of the area proposed to be merged/ included in the Municipal Council Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., based on the recommendations of the Field Staff including the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

5. Today, under instructions, learned Advocate General has submitted that in view of issuance of final Notification dated 23.12.2024, it would not be possible for the concerned authority to recall or withdraw the notification suo moto and unless Notification dated 23.12.2024, Annexure P-5, is quashed and set-aside by the Court, it is not possible for the concerned authority to consider or reconsider the objections of the petitioner, despite the fact that these objections were preferred well within time.

6. Recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Kishorchandra Chhhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 13 SCC 237, is relevant to be referred to deal with the objections raised by the respondents, wherein after taking into consideration earlier judgments of the Apex Court titled as Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat & Ors., (2020) 6 SCC 548 and State of Goa and Anr. vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh & Anr., (2021) 8 SCC 401, it has been held as under:-

“5. We, however, do not approve the view ta