IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 14227 of 2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025

Shri Mohit Kumar Pal … Petitioner

Versus

Dr.N.K. Gupta and others … Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for re porting?¹ Yes

_____________________________________________________

For the petitioner : M/s George and Vinod Kumar Soni,

Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate for

C respondents No. 1 to 4.

: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate for

respondent No. 5.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed by Ld. Principal Secretary TCP to the government of Himachal Pradesh may kindly be quashed and set aside being without Jurisdiction, illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary and also against

the principals of fairness and the natural Justice.

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

ii. That any other relief in the form of writ, order or direction may be passed in favour of the petitioner as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. The petitioner hereino is aggrieved by order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in an appeal filed by the private respondents herein under Section 32 of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, against order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, in terms whereof, the appeal has been allowed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner demonstrates that the same was passed under Sections 248, 253, 254 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 read with Section 39(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and the appeal against said order was not maintainable before the Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning), as the appellate Authority prescribed under the Municipal Corporation Act is the District Judge. Accordingly, he submitted that as the order passed by the Principal Secretary is void ab initio being passed without jurisdiction, the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents also referred to order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, and submitted that besides the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, as the impug ned order was also passed under Section 39(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, by enjoying the delegated power, therefore, the private respondents hoerein have rightly invoked the appellate jurisdiction which was provided under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, by preferring an appeal under the said Act. He thhus submitted that in light of the fact that there is no perversity either jurisdictional or factual in the impugned order, the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Appellate Authority. Having perused the same, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings, which were decided by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, which culminated into order dated 27.03.2025, are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner demonstrates that the Commissioner passed the order, i.e. Annexure P-7, dated 27.03.2025, under the provisions of two statutes, i.e. under Sections 248, 253, 254 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and also Section 39(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.

7. Incidentally, both th ese statutes provide for a statutory appeal against an order passed under the relevant provisions of the respec