IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP NO. 7978 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.10.2025 __________________________________________________ Gian Chand & 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 petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents- State. _________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur , Judge (oral) This petition was filed seeking following substantial relief:- “That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the Notification dated 20.12.2024, Annexure P-6 may kindly be quashed and set-aside with further directions to the respondents to accept objections filed by the petitioners and similarly situated persons with respect to inclusion and exclusion of the ares with further directions to issue a fresh notification with respect to constitution of new created Nagar Panchayat, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. in the interest of law and justice.” 2. From perusal of the reply to the petition, it is apparent that objections filed by the petitioners were not considered treating the same as time barred. It is also stand of the respondent that certain area, requested to be added in the Nagar Panchayat Jhandutta, has already been included in the said Nagar Panchayat. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, material placed on record and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record produced by the respondent-State in the Court, following order was passed on 25.09.2025: “During hearing, it appears that the plea of the respondents that objections of the petitioner were not received within the stipulated period, i.e. within two weeks after notification dated 23.11.2024, is incorrect. As is evident from Annexure P-2, the objections were received in the office of SDM on 29.11.2024, wherefrom these were dispatched vide Dispatch No.7171-73 dated 30.11.2024 to the concerned authority and these were received in the office of Director on 07.12.2024. Two weeks’ time, after issuing of the notification dated 23.11.2024, would have expired on 07.12.2024. Therefore, these objections were preferred within time, i.e. submitted to the SDM within six days and were available with the Director on 14th day (07.12.2024) after issuance of notification. Petitioner has also placed on record information received under Right to Information Act, wherein, it has been informed that as per request of residents of Village Badi Balour, Gram Panchayat Jhandutta, this village was already included in the Nagar Panchayat, Jhandutta, whereas, areas included in the Nagar Panchayat, as published, are depicting contrary picture. In view of above, as prayed by learned Advocate General, matter is adjourned, so as to enable the concerned authority to reconsider the matter and deal with the objections, if are not already considered, by recalling its earlier order/notification and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by rectifying the mistake, if any. Matter is adjourned, as prayed, with observation that pendency of present writ petition shall not come in the way of the competent authority to take appropriate decision and pass an appropriate order in this regard. List on 06.10.2025” 4. 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 3 dated 20.12.2024, suo moto and unless Notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), is quashed and set-aside by the Court, it is not possible for the concerned authority to consider or reconsider the objections of the petitioner, despite the fact that these objections were preferred well within time. 5. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially observations recorded on 25.09.2025, we are of the considered view that notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), has been issued without considering the objections preferred by the petitioners well within time and therefore, the Notification dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) is set aside and quashed. 6. Accordingly, respondents are directed to consider the objections of the petitioner (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4) and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 17.10.2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, if desired so. 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 October 6, 2025 (Nisha) 4