2025:HHC:44473 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14227 of 2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025 Shri Mohit Kumar Pal … Petitioner Versus Dr.N.K. Gupta and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s George and Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed by Ld. Principal Secretary TCP to the government of Himachal Pradesh may kindly be quashed and set aside being without Jurisdiction, illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary and also against the principals of fairness and the natural Justice. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:44473 ii. That any other relief in the form of writ, order or direction may be passed in favour of the petitioner as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in an appeal filed by the private respondents herein under Section 32 of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, against order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, in terms whereof, the appeal has been allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner demonstrates that the same was passed under Sections 248, 253, 254 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 read with Section 39(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and the appeal against said order was not maintainable before the Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning), as the appellate Authority prescribed under the Municipal Corporation Act is the District Judge. Accordingly, he submitted that as the order passed by the Principal Secretary is void ab initio being passed without jurisdiction, the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 3 2025:HHC:44473 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents also referred to order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, and submitted that besides the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, as the impugned order was also passed under Section 39(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, by enjoying the delegated power, therefore, the private respondents herein have rightly invoked the appellate jurisdiction which was provided under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, by preferring an appeal under the said Act. He thus submitted that in light of the fact that there is no perversity either jurisdictional or factual in the impugned order, the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Appellate Authority. Having perused the same, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings, which were decided by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, which culminated into order dated 27.03.2025, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner demonstrates that the Commissioner passed the order, i.e. Annexure 4 2025:HHC:44473 P-7, dated 27.03.2025, under the provisions of two statutes, i.e. under Sections 248, 253, 254 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and also Section 39(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. 7. Incidentally, both these statutes provide for a statutory appeal against an order passed under the relevant provisions of the respective Acts, but the Appellate Authorities are different. 8. Though, the Commissioner concerned was having the power to adjudicate both under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act as well as under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, but this Court is of the considered view that the Commissioner could not have had passed an order by invoking the provisions of both these statues. 9. In light of the fact that both these statutes are independent statutes, a complaint filed under the Town and Country Planning Act has to be decided under the statutory provisions of that Act and a complaint filed under the Municipal Corporation Act, has to be decided in light of the statutory provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act only. 5 2025:HHC:44473 10. This act of the Commissioner of passing order Annexure P-7 by invoking the provisions of two statutes renders the order per se bad and void ab initio. 11. The confusion which such like orders generate is apparent from this writ petition itself. In such like situation, had party–A invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge under the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act, the opposite party would have approached the Court to oppose the same on the ground that why the appeal has not been filed under the provisions of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act and vice versa. 12. Now this is exactly what is happening in this case also. The petitioner is assailing the order passed the Principal Secretary on the ground that as the order was passed under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, the appellate authority under said Act is the District Judge Concerned. On the other hand the counter argument which is raised given by learned Counsel for the private respondents is that because the order was also passed by the Commissioner under the provisions of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, therefore, the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning is the statutory and competent Authority to decide the appeal. 6 2025:HHC:44473 13. All this confusion could have been easily avoided, had the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, passed the order by invoking the jurisdiction under either of the Acts, taking into consideration the contents of the complaint preferred before him. 14. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. This Court not only quashes and set asides the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 05.08.2025 but it also sets aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, dated 27.03.2025 and relegates the parties to the said Authority. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, is directed to initially take a call that the Authority shall be proceeding under which particular Statute in the matter and thereafter shall proceed in the same by following the procedure prescribed under that particular Statute. It goes without saying that de novo proceedings shall be conducted by the Commissioner in accordance with law by providing opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 18, 2025 (narender)