Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

Preferring present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed constitution and declaration of Nagar Panchayat, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., vide impugned notification dated 20.12.2024, issued by the respondents, alleging the same to be^{1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 243Q of PConstitution of India.}

2. Respondents have defended the constitution of Nagar Panchayat in reference, with submission that impugned notification was issued after fulfilling all legal formoalities, by exercising the power conferred upon respondents to d o so, for better development and improved arrangements in rthe area in reference, after giving due consideration to the objuections raised by the local inhabitants for fulfilling long standing demoand of large number of people of the area.

3. CVide notification dated 23.11.2024, Department of Urban Developm ent, Government of Himachal Pradesh had invited objections, if anyh, from inhabitants of the area, specified in the schedule annexed with gthe notification for proposed declaration of Nagar Panchayat, Dharampur, iwithin a period of two weeks from the date of publication of notification in Rajpatra, (e-Gazette) of Himachal Pradesh, through Deputy Commissioner, Mandi.

4. Petitioners have placed on record objections/opposition of a constitution of Nagar Panchayat, Dharampur along with communication dated 07.01.2025, as Annexure P-3 (Colly), which indicate that against the constitution of Nagar Panchayat, Dharampur, inhabitants and different organizations had registered their opposition, vide objections dated 19.11.2024, 23.11.2024, 23.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 18P.12.2024 and 26.12.2024.

5. Though, numerous grounds have been narrated in the petition for objecting constitution of Nagar Panchayat, Dharampur, however, during arguments, only followoing submissions were made.

6. It is claim of the petiti oners that aforesaid objections were not considered by the responrdents and further that time of two weeks for filing objections was countrary to the time of four weeks and six weeks to be provided undeor the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, stipulated in SectionC 4 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, providing procedur e for declaring municipal area.

7. hIt has been further submitted that impugned action of grespondents is in violation of and in conflict with provisions of Article i243-Q of the Constitution of India, which provides mandatory procedure for constitution of municipalities. It has been submitted that, especially as provided in provisions of Article 243Q(2), before constitution of Nagar Panchayat Dharampur, the area in reference has not been declared as “transitional area”, “a smaller urban area” or “a larger urban area”, and respondents have failed to take in account relevant factors, i.e. population of the area, density of the population, revenue generated in the area for local administration, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, economic importance or such other factors, likPe the primary source of income of the area in reference, is agricultu.re as well as the impact of constitution of Nagar Panchayat on the facilities and benefits being extended to the inhabitants under MG NREGA, to families living below poverty line etc. o

8. It has been contende d that no participation of inhabitants was permitted in decision marking process and opportunity of hearing was not provided and by ugranting time lesser than provided under the Municipal Act, poroper and sufficient time was not allowed to file objections. CFurther, that such departure from procedure vitiates the initial notificatio n and resultantly final notification also.

9. hIt has been further submitted that impugned constitution of gNagar Panchayat is in violation of Section 3 and Section 4 of the iMunicipal Act, as impugned