2026:HHC:14690 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.160 of 2020 Decided on: 04.05.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Sareeta Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus The S.D.O. (Civil), Dehra & others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Collector, Sub Division Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an appeal preferred by her against order dated 16.04.2018, passed by the Tehsildar Dehra, District Kangra, in case titled, Sareeta Kaushal vs. Sangeeta Kumari, has been dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14690 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the income certificate issued in favour of husband of the petitioner dated 10.09.2012, showing income of the family of petitioner as ₹13,500/- per annum was challenged by respondent No.3 and the certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 was challenged by the petitioner. On the basis of the income certificate dated 10.09.2012, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Khanwara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. Tehsildar Dehra, after conducing enquiry, had come to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner, who has produced the material or affidavit in support of income is not based on facts. It was also mentioned that income of the husband of the petitioner has to be based from the month of April, 2012 in view of income certificate dated 10.09.2012. He has concealed the facts in the affidavit and further, he could not prove that what he was doing since April, 2012 till date and hence, the income certificate is to be cancelled. 3. The petitioner challenged this enquiry/order passed by the Tehsildar, whereby, the income certificate issued on 10.09.2012 was ordered to be cancelled, before 3 2026:HHC:14690 the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dehra, Distt. Kangra, H.P., who vide order dated 12.03.2015, had accepted the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the application afresh after considering all the facts submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.3. 4. In sequel to the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by respondent No.1, Tehsildar Dehra passed an order on 16.04.2018 concluding that the husband of the petitioner has concealed his income in the year 2012. Before that he had produced the certificate of Negi Service Station, in the year 2010. From this certificate, it was disclosed that he was in a private job and never worked under MNREGA. However, as per Job Card dated 17.05.2011 made on 11.04.2011, he worked on muster Roll till 22.06.2011. As per the report of the Patwari, he worked as Security guard at Baddi till March. On the basis of the said findings, it was found that the certificate of income issued in favour of the petitioner is not based on actual income and thus rejected the income certificate issued in her favour of her husband. 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Tehsildar Dehra, preferred an appeal before the Collector Sub Division Dehra, District 4 2026:HHC:14690 Kangra, H.P., who vide order dated 13.12.2019, has affirmed the said order, holding that all the points raised in the appeal and argued by both the parties have been discussed by Tehsildar Dehra, in his report dated 16.04.2018. The points raised in the appeal have rightly been accepted/rejected. So far as the parental property of respondent No.3 is concerned, the same is a joint property and if this income is also considered in the income of respondent No.3 even then it comes to ₹14,552/-, which is less than the criteria fixed for issuance of IRDP/BPL certificate. It has further been held that the petitioner has failed to prove that husband of respondent No.3 is working as Driver. Though, the categorical finding has been given by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dehra, Distt. Kangra, H.P., that both income certificates have been cancelled by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 12.03.2015, however, only the income certificate of the petitioner was cancelled. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has assailed the same before this Court, on the ground that the Collector Sub Division Dehra, has not considered all the points raised in the appeal inasmuch as 5 2026:HHC:14690 the income of the petitioner was to be calculated for the preceding year i.e. 2011 and thus, the order under challenge is not sustainable. Further the Tehsildar has merely acted upon the report of Patwari, who has submitted a false report with respect to the income of the petitioner, since her husband at no point of time ever remained in Baddi as Security Guard. The income of husband of the petitioner, who was working in MNREGA in the year 2011, has not been correctly appreciated. 7. The respondents have filed replies to the petition and supported the order under challenge. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. A perusal of the order under challenge passed by Collector Sub Division, Dehra, reveals that the points which were raised by the petitioner in the appeal, were discussed by the Tehsildar Dehra in its report dated 16.04.2018 and returned the findings, that the points raised were rightly accepted/rejected by him. The said officer has not given his independent finding with respect to the income of the petitioner. A perusal of the order under challenge reveals that the said officer has merely concentrated on the income 6 2026:HHC:14690 of respondent No.3 and not on the income of the petitioner. It is now well settled that the statutory authority to whom the appeal was preferred has to apply its independent mind while deciding the appeal and record its own findings. However, in the present case, the said authority has not done so, in respect of the income of the family of the petitioner, and thus this Court is left with no option, except to relegate the petitioner to the same authority to decide the appeal afresh taking into consideration all the points raised by her in the appeal and return its independent findings. 10. So far as the income certificate of respondent No.3 is concerned, the said authority has returned its findings that the income is of Rs.14,552/- which is less than the criteria fixed for IRDP/BPL family. Once the income certificate of respondent No.3 has not been challenged by the petitioner, this Court is not going to disturb the said findings given by the Collector. However, at the time of deciding the appeal instituted by the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall be heard in the matter and only after hearing respondent No.3, Collector Sub Division, Dehra, will decide the appeal afresh, after considering all the points raised by 7 2026:HHC:14690 the petitioner in the appeal. 11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.12.2019 passed in Case No.44 of 2018, titled, Sareeta Kaushal vs. Sangeeta Kumari, by respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside, with a direction to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereafter pass orders. The parties are directed to appear before the said authority on 13.05.2026, which will dispose of the appeal within two months thereafter. Needless to say that the validity of income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 will not be gone into by the said authority. No orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 04 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge