2025:HHC:29535 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.35 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gram Panchayat Dharchandna …….Petitioner Versus Padam Sharma and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra and Ms. Bhanvi Dogra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Chandel & Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocates, with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore and Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.4 to 9/State. Mr. Ankit Kaloti and Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocates, for respondent No.10. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Review Petition No.35 of 2025 By way of instant review petition, prayer has been made on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Dharchandna, through its Pradhan to review/recall the order dated 29.10.2024, passed by this Court in CWP No.12099 of 2024, titled as Padam Sharma and Others Vs. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:29535 2 State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, on the ground that at the time of passing of order, sought to be reviewed, they were not heard, as a result thereof, great prejudice has been caused to the residents of Gram Panchayat, Dharchandna. 2. It is averred in the petition that though review petitioner and another Gram Panchayat, Bawat, were also impleaded as party respondent No.7 & 8, but they were not issued any notice, as a result thereof, this Court, having taken note of the version put forth by the petitioner, proceeded to pass order, sought to be reviewed. 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel representing the review petitioner states that had this Court issued notice to the review petitioner and proforma respondent, who were otherwise impleaded as party respondents No.7 & 8 in the original case bearing CWP No.12099 of 2024, they would have brought comprehensive facts before this Court, enabling this Court to pass appropriate order. 4. To the contrary, Mr. N.S. Chandel & Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents No.4 to 9, state that since this Court did not decide the petition on merits, rather simply taking note of the affidavits filed by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla as well as Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Chopal, proceeded to order that order dated 2025:HHC:29535 3 05.11.2020, passed by the SDM, Chopal as well as written compromise arrived inter se parties shall be adhered to by the residents of both the villages, no ground for review is made out. 5. In nutshell, precisely the grouse of the review petitioner as has been highlighted in the review petition and further canvassed by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel is that on account of passing of order dated 29.10.2024, which is sought to be reviewed, residents of both the Gram Panchayats, as detailed hereinabove, are now permanently estopped from celebrating Diwali at Mahasu Temple, situate at village Gaunkhar. Mr. Dogra states that order dated 05.11.2020, if read in entirety, clearly reveals that same was passed in peculiar circumstances i.e. COVID-19, but now since situation has changed and with the passage of time, residents of petitioner villagers as well as other villagers have resolved their differences, they may again celebrate Diwali at Mahasu Temple, situate at village Gaunkhar, but same may not be possible, till the time, order, sought to be reviewed, is not reviewed or modified. 6. Having regard to the nature of dispute inter se parties, this Court before passing order at hand, made an attempt for amicable settlement and passed order dated 22.08.2025, which reads as under: 2025:HHC:29535 4 “CMP.M No. 1483 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay, if any, in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 27.3.2025 is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CMP No.20041 of 2025 2. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the learned Additional Registrar (J.), whereby respondent No.10 was proceeded against ex-parte, is recalled and respondent is permitted to join the proceedings. The application is disposed of. RP No. 35 of 2025 3. Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate, has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.10 i.e. Gram Panchayat Bawat. Reply on behalf of respondent No.10 is already on record. 4. Though vide order dated 8.7.2025, this Court had adjourned the matter for today’s date, enabling the parties to explore possibility of amicable settlement, but it appears that till date, parties have not been able to settle their matter amicably. Though having carefully perused reply filed by respondent No.10, there appears to be some consensus between Gram Panchayat Bawat and Gram Panchayat Dharchandna, but on account of objections raised by some local people i.e. respondents No.1 to 3, parties have not been able to settle their dispute finally. 5. Since learned Senior Counsel, who has to argue on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is unavailable, on account of personal difficulty, prayer has been made for adjournment. Prayer allowed as not opposed. 6. Mr. Vikram Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Bawat, under whose area, Mahasu Temple falls, states that residents of both the Panchayats are likely to assemble on the eve of Panchmi in the temple on 27.8.2025 and 28.8.2025 and during such function, they shall make an effort to get the matter amicably settled. 7. In view of the above, list this matter on 1.9.2025, on which date, above named Pradhan alongwith Pradhan of Dharchandana shall 2025:HHC:29535 5 apprise this Court with regard to outcome of the meeting, if any, held on aforesaid dates. 8. Needless to say, Pradhans of afore Gram Panchayats shall be responsible for peaceful meeting and in the event of any ruckus, if any, created by the residents, they shall be hauld for contempt of Court.” 7. Though pursuant to afore order, review petitioners and proforma respondent have placed on record resolution of meeting held on 27/28.08.2025 at Mahasu Temple, situate at village Gaunkhar, whereby residents of Gram Panchayats, Dharchandna & Bawat, have agreed to celebrate Panchmi & Diwali at Mahasu Temple, village Gaunkhar, but such fact has been seriously disputed by learned Senior Counsel representing respondents No.1 to 3, who while placing on record resolution dated 26.08.2025 passed by residents of village Gaunkhar, which is part of Gram Panchayat, Bawat, stated that on account of previous conduct of residents of Dharchandna, they are not ready for Diwali celebration at Mahasu Temple, village Gaunkhar. 8. Since there is no possibility of amicable settlement, as has been taken note hereinabove, this Court has no option but to dispose of the present petition, on its own merits. 9. Having carefully perused order, sought to be reviewed, this Court finds that in the year 2019, a complaint was lodged at the behest of residents of village Gaunkhar, Tehsil Kupvi, District Shimla, 2025:HHC:29535 6 Himachal Pradesh, that on the eve of Diwali, residents of village Dharchandna, unauthorisedly entered their village and created ruckus. Again in the year 2020, residents of village Dharchandna unauthorisedly entered village Gaunkhar on the eve of Diwali and caused breach of peace, as a result thereof, criminal cases were lodged against the parties, however, subsequently with the intervention of elderly people of both the villages, residents of both the villages decided that they will not go to villages of each other on the eve of Diwali, rather Diwali would be celebrated in their own villages. 10. Having taken note of apprehension of breach of peace and compromise arrived inter se parties, SDO Chopal vide order dated 05.11.2020, directed the residents of village Dharchandna not to visit village Gaunkhar during Diwali and pursuant to afore order, residents of village Dharchandna were restrained from entering the village Gaunkhar for two years, but in the year 2023, a group of people from village Dharchandna again entered village Gaunkhar on the eve of Diwali and allegedly gave beatings to the residents of village Gaunkhar. In afore background, residents of village Gaunkhar, by way of CWP No.12099 of 2024, approached this Court seeking direction to respondents to enforce the order dated 05.11.2020, issued by SDM, Chopal and implement the agreement dated 12.11.2020. 2025:HHC:29535 7 11. This Court having taken note of the fact that festival of Diwali was approaching, simply directed Deputy Commissioner, Shimla as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla to ensure that order dated 05.11.2020, passed by the SDM, Chopal as well as written compromise arrived inter se parties is adhered to by the residents of both the villages i.e. Gaunkhar and Dharchandna, so that no untoward incident takes place. Now in view of subsequent developments, as have been taken note hereinabove, whereby residents of Gram Panchayat Dharchandna and Bawat are ready and willing to celebrate the festival of Diwali at Mahasu Temple, village Gaunkhar, they have approached this Court to review the order dated 29.10.2024, because on account of order, sought to be reviewed, they are not being permitted by villagers of Gaunkhar as well as administration to celebrate Diwali in the premises of Mahasu Temple, situate at village Gaunkhar. 12. Since this Court has not passed any order on merits, rather, simply taking note of prohibition order dated 05.11.2020 as well as written compromise arrived inter se parties, disposed of the petition with the direction to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to ensure that aforesaid order is adhered to by the residents of both the villages, but having regard to the nature of dispute coupled with the fact that review petitioners were 2025:HHC:29535 8 not issued notice prior to passing of the order, sought to be reviewed, despite being party to the case, this Court in the interest of justice, deems it fit to recall its order dated 29.10.2024 passed in CWP No.12099 of 2024, with the further direction to hear the matter on merits. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Registry is directed to restore the CWP No.12099 of 2024 to its original number. 14. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. CWP No.12099 of 2024 15. List on 15.09.2025, as jointly agreed inter se parties. 16. In the meantime, respondents may file reply. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)