2025:HHC:21277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10661 of 2025 Decided on: 04.07.2025 Shiv Singh Sen … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5-State. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and 6, respectively. 2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that an appeal filed by him under Rule 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., dated 16.06.2025, copy whereof is appended with this petition as Annexure P-4, has been returned back to his learned counsel as per Note appended on the first page of Annexure P-4, on the ground that in terms of the Notification issued by the State Election Commission, dated 24.05.2025, the appeal was time barred. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:21277 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was not time barred, for the reason that the copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was received by the petitioner only on 21.06.2025 and the petitioner immediately filed the appeal within the period of limitation thereof. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner was having a statutory right to prefer an appeal in terms of the provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Appellate Authority, was obliged to receive the same and decide the same by passing same order. In other words, the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not have been returned to the petitioner through Counsel as has been done in the present case. The Office of the Divisional Commissioner was bound to register the matter and thereafter, in case the Authority was of the considered view that the appeal was time barred, it could have dismissed the appeal on that count. But, this ought to have been done in a manner which is akin to the performance of duty by a Quassi Judicial Authority, that is to say that after hearing the petitioner and thereafter, by way of passing a reasoned order. The appeal could not have been returned in the mode and manner in which the same has been done. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed on this short count and direction is issued to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. to entertain the appeal and thereafter, pass 3 2025:HHC:21277 appropriate orders thereupon after hearing the parties. It is clarified that this Court has not returned the findings as to whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner is within limitation. All that this Court is observing is that these issues cannot be decided by appending Notes on the grounds of appeal preferred by the parties and have to be adjudicated by passing appropriate orders as the aggrieved party has a right to assail the order so passed before the next available Fora. 7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. As the judgment has been dictated in the presence of learned Additional Advocate General, he undertakes to inform the order passed by this Court both to the Deputy Commissioner Mandi as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, so that no order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner is passed in the interregnum. The petitioner undertakes to present the order passed by the Court today before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi by 05.07.2025. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, thereafter, shall immediately take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 04, 2025 (Rishi)