2025:HHC:39117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6074 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.11 . 2025 Sanjay Mahajan & others. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Others. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners. Mr.Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) This petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “1. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the Notification No. UD-A(1)-20/2024 dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P/5) for the creation of Nagar Panchayat Nagrota Surian, as it is in violation of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, and the principles of natural justice. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2025:HHC:39117 CWP No. 6074 of 2025 2. Declare the actions of Respondent No.4 in certifying inflated revenue figure and disregarding objections as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of natural justice. 3. Notification dated 15/01/2025 regarding appointment of administrator to the newly created Nagar Panchayat Nagrota Suriyan may be quashed. 4. Respondent no-4 may kindly be directed not to proceed with any process with regard to conduct of elections pending adjudication to the present writ petition.” 2. Main grievance of the petitioners is that after issuing draft Notification dated 23.11.2024, published in Rajpatra on 24.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), there was 14 days time available with the petitioners and other aggrieved persons to file objections, and accordingly, petitioners and others had submitted objections on 3.12.2024, 4.12.2024. 5.12.2024 and 7.12.2024, within 14 days after publication of draft Notification, but final Notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) has been issued without considering these objections. 3. Considering aforesaid grievance, which has been substantiated by the material placed on record of present Writ Petition and also verified and admitted by respondents, on 13.11.2025, following order was passed:- “No rejoinder is intended to be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, before finalization of merger of Gram Panchayat/certain area of Gram Panchayat in the concerned Nagar Panchayat Nagrota 3 2025:HHC:39117 CWP No. 6074 of 2025 Surian, 14 days’ time was available for filing the objections and petitioner had preferred objections within the time, but, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra had submitted the matter to the Higher Authorities for passing final order with the report that no objections had been filed. If so, respondents are directed to re-look into the record and reconsider the matter in consonance with law. List for instructions/consideration on 19.11.2025.” 4. Today, under instructions, learned Advocate General Today, under instructions, learned Advocate General submitted that it has been communicated to him that in view of the consequential action taken by the respondent-authority, after issuance of Notification dated 20.12.2024, it is not possible for the concerned authority to recall or withdraw the Notifications, including Notification dated 20.12.2024, suo moto and unless Notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), is quashed and set- aside by the Court, it is not possible for the concerned authority to consider or reconsider the objections of the petitioners, despite the fact that these objections were preferred well within time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred judgment dated 15th October, 2022 passed by Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 1610 of 2021, titled as Chet Ram & others Vs. State of H.P. & others to advocate quashing of entire process from initial stage by referring paras 14 to 22 of the aforesaid judgment. 4 2025:HHC:39117 CWP No. 6074 of 2025 6. In our considered view, aforesaid judgment, for different facts involved therein, is not applicable in present matter, as in the said case respondents-State had included some area in Nagar Panchyat in final Notification which was never notified in the draft Notification. 7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially observations recorded on 13.11.2025, we are of the considered view that notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) has been issued without considering the objections preferred by the petitioners well within time. Therefore, the Notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and quashed. Consequently subsequent Notification dated 15.1.2025 (Annexure P-7) issued on the basis of Notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) appointing Administrator, but only qua Nagar Pachyat area Nagrota Surian, also stands quashed. 8. Accordingly, respondents are directed to consider the objections of the petitioners (Annexure P-3 Colly) and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.11.2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving personal hearing to the petitioners, if desired so. Thereafter, proceedings shall be taken to its logical end as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 5 2025:HHC:39117 CWP No. 6074 of 2025 The present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in the aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Romesh Verma), Judge. 19th November, 2025 (Keshav)