IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.17801 of 2025 Decided on 01st December 2025 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate, through V.C and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As per the report of the Registry, service of respondent No.6 is still awaited. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that respondent No.6 has been served dasti. He further submits that the report of the dasti service stands filed in the Registry. 2 2. In the light of the submissions so made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the light of the fact that none is present for respondent No.6, therefore, the said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at this stage. 4. By way of this petition, the petitioners, inter alia, have prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith restore the names of the petitioners and their family members in the Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P., with all consequential entitlements and benefits; b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional decision dated 11.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 deleting the names of the petitioners from the Parivar Register; c) Direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for acting beyond their powers, in violation of statutory provisions and constitutional mandates; d) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from giving effect to or relying upon the impugned deletion or any consequential orders arising there from.” 3 5. The petitioners is aggrieved by Annexure P-1 dated 11.10.2025, in terms whereof, the names of the petitioners, according to them have been arbitrarily deleted from the Pariwar register. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 7, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that in such a situation, an aggrieved party has a right to make objection to Secretary of Gram Panchayat within 15 days of the revision of the register, as per Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, the petition is pre-mature. 7. Accordingly, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioners filing objections against the Pariwar register i.e., against their omission therefrom within 15 days from today, the same shall be treated to have been filed within limitation and the same be decided in terms of Rule 21(3) (C) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 4 1997. Till then no coercive action be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-1. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 01, 2025 (Vinod)