Judicial review lies against delimitation notifications if objections not decided by competent authority with reasoned order; quashed for misrepresentation to approving body, fresh consideration directed after hearing.

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) That the impugned notification contained in Annexure P-2 dated 23.11.2024 may kindly be quashed and set-aside qua the Panchayats of the petitioners and their Panchayats may not be included in the newly formed Nagar Panchayat Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P. in the interest of justice.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the objections raised by the petitioners and other residents of Gram Panchayats Kuthela and Manjhed, within time bound period.

2. Though prayer has been made to quash the Notification dated 23.11.2024, Annexure P-2, however, from the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the relevant final Notification is dated 20.12.2024, which has been placed on record as Annexures R-IX/R-6 with the replies filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as respondents No. 3 and 4.

3. 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 creation of Nagar Panchayat, Swarghat, District Bilaspur, 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 Nagar Panchayat, Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P. based on the recommendations of the Field Staff including the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

6. Today, under instructions, learned Advocate General has submitted that in view of issuance of final Notification dated 20.12.2024, it would not be possible for the concerned authority to recall or withdraw the notification suo moto and unless Notification dated 20.12.2024, Annexures R-6 & R-IX, are 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.

7. 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