IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 462 of 2025

Decided on : 18.12.2025

Gram Panchayat, Haripur Sandholi & others ...Petitioners.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for repuorting?1

For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional

Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

Petitioner, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of Constitution of India, has filed present petition seeking

following substantive reliefs:-

“(A) That the impugned Notifications dated 23.12.2024 (Annexures P-5

and P-6) whereby inclusion of petitioners’- Gram Panchayats in the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation, Baddi as per Schedule appended to said notifications may kindly be quashed and set aside and as a consequence thereof status qua ante may kindly be

ordered to be maintained.

(B) That the respondent-State may kindly be ordered to produce the

entire record pertaining to the case and more specifically the material which weighed with them in over-ruling the

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

representations/objections made vide Annexures P-2(Colly) and P-4 (Colly). .

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 creation of Municipal Corporation, Baddi, Duistrict Solan, 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 alohngwith other documents for consideration of Council of Ministers, gpurporting 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 DevelopmePnt) 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/ includ ed in the Municipal Corporation, Baddi, District Solaon, H.P., based on the recommendations of the Field Staff including the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

5. Today, under instructions, learned Advocate General has submitted thoat in view of issuance of final Notification dated 23.12.2024C, 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 and P-6, is quashed and set-aside by the Court, it is not possible for the concerned authority to consider ior 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 (