IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 819 of 2025

Decided on : 18.12.2025

Balbir Singh & others ...Petitioners.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondent.

Coram

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

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioners : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.

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

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional

Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

hPetitioner, 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 Nagar Panchayat

Barsar; and/or.

(ii) A writ of certiorari be issued to quash and set-aside

the impugned notification i.e. Annexure P-3 dated

20.12.2024, qua Gram Panchayat Bani.

2. From perusal of the reply filed to the petition and also instructions dated 12.12.2025 placed on record on behalf of the

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

respondents/State during pendency of the petition, alongwith the documents, it is apparent that, as a matter of fact, the Pobjections, preferred by the residents, were though recorded in the proceedings as well as the chart prepared for proposal of inclusion of the petitioners in Nagar Panchayat Barsar, Di strict Hamirpur, H.P., however, concerned Competent Auothority 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 Mionisters, purporting the same as decided in the memoranduCm 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 ithe 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 Nagar PPanchayat Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., based on the recommendations of the Field Staff including the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

5. Today, under instructions, learn ed Advocate General has submitted that in view of issuaonce 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, Annexure P-3, is quashed and set-aside by the Court, it is not poossible for the concerned authority to consider or reconsider C 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 taken by the High Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued