IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 69 of 2021 Decided on: 29.07.2025 ____________________________________________________ Kapil Devi Singh Retola ……….. petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla ……….respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.2.2021 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla H.P. Exercising Power of Appellate Authority under the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, whereby order dated 8.11.2019 passed by learned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla in case No. 908/AP/15 titled as M.C. Shimla through its Commissioner vs. Kapil Dev Singh Retola has been upheld 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment. 3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 4. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an 3 error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 5. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave 4 dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 6. A complaint qua the unauthorized construction being raised by the present petitioner in the form of stalls by covering 29.65 sq. meters area in the year 2015 was received by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The respondent-Corporation based on the complaint issued a notice dated 23.4.2015 under Section 254(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act asking the present petitioner to stop further construction. 7. Since the construction in the case at hand was not stopped, therefore, vide notice dated 30.4.2015 issued under Sections 242 and 253 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioner had been directed to demolish the unauthorized structure raised and was further directed to appear before the Commissioner M.C. Shimla for hearing. 8. In pursuance to the notice dated 30.4.2015 issued under Sections 242 & 253 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, whereby the petitioner had been directed to remove the unauthorized construction, the petitioner took a plea in reply dated 5.5.2015 that the wooden structures/stalls have been constructed with no roofs and the walls thereof have been constructed with plastic tarpaulin with the intention to accommodate Teh Bazaries. The same, it was alleged was being 5 done to decongest the busy road so that people in the market could move freely. 9. Besides the aforesaid, vide letter dated 17.6.2015, the petitioner categorically stated that vide letters dated 8.1.2015 and 29.1.2015, he had applied for permission to construct wooden structures and when no communication had been received from the respondent-Corporation, the unauthorized construction in the case at hand on the set back area had been raised. It was further stated therein that the platforms had been erected on wood with no roof and walls. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid admission made by the present petitioner, wherein he admitted raising of the construction in the year 2015, when the petitioner filed response dated 17.3.2018 & 16.3.2019 to the notice dated 30.4.2015 issued under Sections 242 and 253 of the HPMC Act, the petitioner took a completely contrary stand. In the aforesaid response filed by the petitioner, he submitted that the construction in the case at hand was raised way back in the year 1993. Besides the aforesaid, when the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court in para No.4(v), the petitioner took a stand that the construction had been made way back in the year 1952. 11. The 1st Appellate Court had correctly observed that the H.P. Municipal Corporation Shimla in the case at hand 6 discharges quasi judicial powers. The proceedings before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation are summary in nature. In view of the admission made by the petitioner qua raising of construction in the case at hand in the year 2015, there was no requirement for holding an elaborate inquiry in the case at hand. 12. Other than the aforesaid, after filing a reply before the Commissioner, the petitioner has been proceeded against ex parte on 6.7.2019. Being proceeded ex parte means only having been proceeded against ex parte for the day and not for the entire proceedings. In this respect, a reference can made to Sangarm Singh vs. Election Commission of India (AIR) 1955 SC 425. Moreover, the petitioner was required to keep a strict vigil with respect to the proceedings in the case at hand. He could have come and joined the proceedings at any stage. 13. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court dated 24.02.2021. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. 7 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge July 29, 2025 tarun