IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 295 of 2026 in LPA No. _141_ of 2026 Decided on : 17.03.2026 Rakesh Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus State of HP and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Geneal, for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 295 of 206 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 141 of 2026 The primary grouse, as such, of the present appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal is that the learned Single Judge has wrongly 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- concluded that the authorities, before carving out the constitution of zones, preferred the basis of serial number over that of contiguity. The primary grievance, as such, of the petitioner is regarding the constitution of the zones, which the authorities have justified while passing the order dated 19th July, 2018 (Annexure P-12) and which stands upheld vide order dated 21st November, 2018 (Annexure P-14) by the Additional Chief Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2. 2. A perusal of the detailed judgment passed by the learned Single Judge goes on to show that the learned Single Judge has also granted the relief which was claimed by the petitioners regarding taking action on the inquiry report (Annexure P-8) for excluding from the voters’ list 126 members who were allegedly granted membership contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws and who did not fulfil the conditions, as such, and has directed the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shimla, to hear the parties, afford an opportunity of hearing, and carry out verification of the members of the society as to whether the averments were correct in terms of the provisions contained therein. 3. Further, directions were also issued regarding the reconstitution of the society, which was carried out by the Registrar vide order dated 19th July, 2018, and upheld on 21st November, 2018, against which the present appellants have no grouse. However, in paragraphs 22 and 23, the learned Single Judge recorded that the parties to the lis have no objections regarding the redetermination and carving out of the zones and, therefore, did not interfere with the orders -3- passed by the authority below on this aspect. A perusal of paragraphs 22 and 23, goes to show the same, which read as under,. “22. This action of working out the zones in the aforesaid manner defies logic and reasoning because if contiguity was the main factor to be borne in mind, then in case village Neuri was adjacent or adjoining or neighbouring or bordering village Kashlog, as claimed, and village Barsnu was at a distance, then the entire members of village Neuri, especially the other family members of respondents No. 1 to 9 who continue to fall in Barsnu ward, were required to be shifted to Kashlog- II ward. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The order dated 03.12.2014 as passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration), Co-operative Societies, H.P., and thereafter the order passed by the Special Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-10), dated 15.12.2014, are quashed and set aside.” 4. If that is so, we are of the considered opinion that a perusal of the said paragraphs records a consensus, as such, regarding the issue of redetermination, and if that is so, we are of the considered opinion that it does not lie in the mouth of the present appellants, who were petitioners No. 1, 6 & 10 before the learned Single Judge, to argue to the contrary. Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that liberty be given to the present appellants, as such, to approach the learned Single Judge for filing an appropriate application, since what has happened in the Court is best left to that Court and it is for that Court to comment. The proceedings upon the consensus had been arrived at before the concerned Court. 5. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another (1982) 2 SCC 463, it has been held that the Judges cannot be dragged into the arena of dispute inter se litigation. Whatever the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted -4- before them that has to be the last word on the subject. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney-General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri. A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. ”Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation.” We are bound to accept the statement of the judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. WE cannot allow the statement of other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily and there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.” 6. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of, with liberty granted to the appellants to approach the learned Single Judge. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17nd March, 2026 (Tarun Singh) -5-