No Interference in Ward Delimitation Without Mala Fides, HP High Court Rejects Plea

---

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of judicial review in administrative matters, has dismissed a petition challenging the ward delimitation process for the Municipal Council of Sundernagar. A single-judge bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that the court would not interfere in the decisions of statutory authorities regarding ward boundaries in the absence of any allegations of mala fides.

The Court upheld the delimitation of Ward No. 4, Salah, despite claims of significant population disparity, after finding the petitioner's core contentions to be factually incorrect and noting the limited grounds for judicial intervention in such policy matters.

Case Background

The petitioner, Shiv Singh Sen, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, and the Divisional Commissioner, which had dismissed his objections and subsequent appeal against the draft delimitation of wards in Sundernagar.

The process was initiated following a notification by the State Election Commission on May 24, 2025, for the delimitation of wards of Urban Local Bodies in the state. Mr. Sen contested the final boundaries of his ward, seeking the High Court's intervention to set aside the authorities' orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Submissions: The primary argument advanced by the petitioner was that the delimitation of Ward No. 4 violated Rule 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015, which mandates that "as far as practicable each ward shall have equal population." It was contended that Ward No. 4's population exceeded 2000, while other wards allegedly had populations between 1000 and 1400. This disparity, the petitioner argued, would adversely affect development, as municipal funds would be thinly spread across a larger population.

Respondents' Defence: The State, along with the State Election Commission, defended the delimitation exercise, stating it was conducted in compliance with statutory requirements. They argued that the wards were formed considering natural boundaries like rivers and streams, and any judicial interference at this stage would disrupt the entire harmonious formation. It was also noted that the final delimitation had already been notified in the official gazette on July 4, 2025, before the appellate authority had even passed its order.

Court's Reasoning and Findings

Justice Goel's judgment systematically dismantled the petitioner's case, highlighting the limited scope of judicial review and factual inaccuracies in the plea.

No Mala Fides Alleged: The Court gave significant weight to the fact that the petitioner had explicitly conceded that he was not alleging any mala fides (bad faith) in the delimitation process. The judgment emphasized that this admission was crucial: > "This Court is of the considered view that in the absence of there being any mala fides alleged in the course of the delimitation of the wards, it is not the prerogative of this Court, nor the domain of this Court to advise the statutory authorities as to how the limits of the wards are to be fixed."

Factual Discrepancy: The petitioner's central claim of a lone, oversized ward was found to be factually incorrect. The Court referred to official data submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, which revealed a different picture: - Ward No. 11 (Purana Bazar): Population 2031 - Ward No. 12 (West Colony): Population 2402 - Ward No. 13 (East Colony): Population 2741

The Court observed, "the contention of the petitioner that it was only ward No.4 which was having a population of more than 2400 and other wards were having population in between 1000 and 1400 is incorrect."

Appellate Order Upheld: The High Court also affirmed the reasoning of the Divisional Commissioner (Appellate Authority), who had dismissed the appeal on several grounds, including the lack of evidence of developmental impact, the administrative chaos of redrawing boundaries based on an individual's grievance, and the fact that altering one ward would have a cascading effect on others. The High Court found the appellate order to be neither "perverse" nor "unwarranted."

Final Decision

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it, thereby upholding the delimitation of wards for the Municipal Council, Sundernagar, as finalized by the competent authorities. The decision reinforces the principle that courts will exercise restraint and defer to the wisdom of administrative bodies in policy matters like delimitation, unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, non-compliance with rules, or mala fide intent.