Disposed¶29

Raj Kumar Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2025CWP/17801/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parivar Register; deletion of names; Gram Panchayat Gaggal; District Kangra; Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997; Rule 21; Rule 21(3)(C); objection within 15 days of revision of register; premature writ petition; Annexure P-1 dated 11.10.2025; mandamus; certiorari; prohibition; disciplinary action; no coercive action; CWP No.17801 of 2025; Ajay Mohan Goel.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with the direction that objections filed by the petitioners against their omission from the Pariwar register within 15 days shall be treated as within limitation and decided under Rule 21(3)(C) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, and that till then no coercive action be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-1. ¶29

Raj Kumar Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking restoration of the petitioners' names in the Parivar Register and quashing of Annexure P-1 dated 11.10.2025 is premature, in view of the right of an aggrieved party to file an objection to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat within 15 days of revision of the register under Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The petition is pre-mature because an aggrieved party has a right to make an objection to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat within 15 days of the revision of the register, as per Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997.

¶28

Key takeaways

If the petitioners file objections to their omission from the Pariwar register within 15 days, the objections shall be treated as filed within limitation and shall be decided in terms of Rule 21(3)(C) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997.ratio¶29
Until the objections are decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-1.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.17801 of 2025, decided 01.12.2025) filed by Raj Kumar Sharma and others seeking mandamus for restoration of their names and those of their family members in the Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P., and certiorari quashing the decision dated 11.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 deleting their names from the register, besides disciplinary action and a writ of prohibition. Held, the petition is pre-mature, since an aggrieved party has a right to make an objection to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat within 15 days of the revision of the register as per Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. Petition disposed of with the direction that objections filed within 15 days be treated as within limitation and decided in terms of Rule 21(3)(C) of the said Rules; till then, no coercive action to be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-1. (Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.17801 of 2025 Decided on 01^st December 2025

¶3

Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma and others

¶4

…Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate.

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶12

Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate, through V.C and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 7.

¶13

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶14

As per the report of the Registry, service of

¶15

respondent No.6 is still awaited. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that respondent No.6 has been served dasti . He further submits that the report of the dasti service stands filed in the Registry.

¶16

¶17

In the light of the submissions so made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the light of the fact that none is present for respondent No.6, therefore, the said respondent

¶18

is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte .

¶19

With the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at this stage.

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioners, inter alia , have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith restore the names of the petitioners and their family members in the Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P., with all consequential entitlements and benefits;

¶22

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional decision dated 11.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 deleting the names of the petitioners from the Parivar Register;

¶23

c) Direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for acting beyond their powers, in violation of statutory provisions and constitutional mandates;

¶24

d) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from giving effect to or relying upon the impugned deletion or any consequential orders arising there from.”

¶25

¶26

The petitioners is aggrieved by Annexure P-1 dated 11.10.2025, in terms whereof, the names of the petitioners, according to them have been arbitrarily deleted from the Pariwar register.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 7, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that in such a situation,

¶28

an aggrieved party has a right to make objection to Secretary of Gram Panchayat within 15 days of the revision of the register, as per Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, the petition is pre-mature.

¶29

Accordingly, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioners filing objections against the Pariwar register i.e., against their omission therefrom within 15 days from today, the same shall be treated to have been filed within limitation and the same be decided in terms of Rule 21(3) (C) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules,

¶30

¶31

Till then no coercive action be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-1.

¶32

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶33

December 01, 2025 (Vinod)

Raj Kumar Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhian Singh and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joginder Snigh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of H.P

Raj Kumar Vs Leela Devi

M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Ms Garg and Garg Company