IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3192 of 2026 Decided on: 7th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhagat Singh and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sahil Thakur and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3 to 6. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition was filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and decide the resolution dated 02.10.2024 passed by Gram Panchayat Baryogi for the creation/reorganization of a new Gram Panchayat Bhamar at Tansar, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the applicable Government policy. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for the creation of the proposed Gram Panchayat Bhamar 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 at Tansar, in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, particularly when other Gram Panchayats having lesser population have already been reorganized in District Mandi.” 2. Respondent-Panchayati Raj Department has placed on record office instructions dated 20.03.2026. These instructions issued by the Additional Secretary (PR) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, convey as under:- “It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the case of the petitioner has not been singled out or discriminated against, but is part of a larger pool of pending proposals, which could not be considered due to administrative constraints and statutory timelines. The remaining proposals, including that of the petitioner, are proposed to be considered in due course, likely before the next Panchayat elections to be held in the year 2031.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider the proposal of the petitioners in accordance with law well before the next Panchayat elections to be held in the year 2031. Learned Assistant Advocate General has no objection to above in view of the instructions dated 20.03.2026. 4. Taking note of the office instructions dated 20.03.2026 and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the 3 matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.1 and 3/competent authority(s) to consider the pending proposal of the petitioners in accordance with law before the next panchayat elections. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 07, 2026 Judge Mukesh