The principle of 'Nemo Judex in Causa Sua' prohibits any quasi-judicial authority from hearing an appeal or revision against an order previously passed by the same authority, as it inherently violates the rule against bias and undermines the fairness of the judicial process.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

Considering the grievance of the petitioner, the order impugned herein and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of this writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.

2. ‘Nemo Judex in Causa Sua’. No man shall be a judge in his own cause. It appears that respondent No.1-the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh missed this basic legal principle while passing the impugned order, thereby deciding the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. Under Section 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (as amended) (in short ‘the Act’), any applicant aggrieved by an order passed under any of the provisions of the Act may within thirty days of the communication of the order to him prefer an appeal to an Officer not below the rank of a Secretary appointed by the State Government in this behalf. The section reads as under:-

“32.(1) Any applicant aggrieved by an order passed under any of the provisions of this Act may, within thirty days of the date of communication of order to him, prefer an appeal to an officer not below the rank of a Secretary, appointed by the State Government in this behalf, and such an appeal shall be made in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.

(2) The officer appointed under sub-section (1) shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, decide the appeal preferred under this section within a period of six months from the date of filing of the same.

(3) Subject to the provisions of section 33 the order of the appellate authority shall be final.”

The petitioner presented appeal under Section 32 of the Act against orders of refusal of regularization dated 19.02.2025 and 23.04.2025 passed by the Assistant Town Planner, Sub-Divisional Town Planning Office, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. Respondent No.1 dismissed this appeal on 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-1). The order was communicated to the petitioner on 12.11.2025. Section 33 of the Act provides remedy of revision against the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 32 as under:-

“33. The State Government may, at any time, but not later than twelve months of the passing of the order, on its own motion or on an application filed by the person aggrieved by any order by the appellate authority under section 32 within thirty days of the date of communication of such order to him, call for and examine the record of any case disposed of by the Director under section-31 or appellate authority under section 32 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness of the order and as to the regularity of any proceeding of the Director or the appellate authority and may, when calling such record direct that the execution of the order be suspended. The State Government may, after examining the record, pass such order as it thinks fit and its order shall be final and no further application for revision or review thereof shall lie:

Provided that no order shall be passed unless the person affected thereby and the Director has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

Petitioner availed the remedy provided under Section 33 of the Act and filed his revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed by respondent No.1 on 15.01.2026 as under:-

“Matter heard. The present Petitioner was accorded a reasonable opportun