Disposed¶28

Bhagat Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2026CWP/3192/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of without examining merits; direction to competent authority to consider pending proposal for creation/reorganization of new Gram Panchayat Bhamar at Tansar (Gram Panchayat Baryogi resolution dated 02.10.2024) in accordance with law before next panchayat elections (2031); Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; mandamus; office instructions dated 20.03.2026 by Additional Secretary (PR); administrative constraints and statutory timelines; alleged discrimination vis-a-vis smaller Gram Panchayats reorganized in District Mandi; CWP No.3192 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶28

Bhagat Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed, by way of mandamus, 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 Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the applicable Government policy. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Taking note of the office instructions dated 20.03.2026 and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the matter, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a 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.

¶27

Key takeaways

The Court expressly confined its decision to noting the office instructions dated 20.03.2026 and the parties' submissions, leaving the merits of the matter unexamined.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bhagat Singh and others v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.3192 of 2026 (HP High Court, Shimla, decided 07.04.2026, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.). Petitioners sought mandamus directing respondents to consider and decide the resolution dated 02.10.2024 passed by Gram Panchayat Baryogi for creation/reorganization of a new Gram Panchayat Bhamar at Tansar under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and to reconsider their case non-discriminatorily, other Gram Panchayats with lesser population in District Mandi having already been reorganized. The Panchayati Raj Department filed office instructions dated 20.03.2026 stating the petitioners' case was part of a larger pool of pending proposals deferred due to administrative constraints and statutory timelines, to be considered likely before the 2031 Panchayat elections. Counsel for petitioners expressed satisfaction with a direction to consider the proposal before the next elections; the Assistant Advocate General raised no objection. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondents No.1 and 3/competent authority(s) to consider the pending proposal in accordance with law before the next panchayat elections; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3192 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 7^th April, 2026

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhagat Singh and others …..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sahil Thakur and Ms. Saroj, Advocates.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3 to 6.

¶12

Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

This writ petition was filed for the grant of

¶15

following substantive reliefs:-

¶16

“(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.

¶17

(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

¶18

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶19

¶20

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.”

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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.”

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶29

April 07, 2026 Mukesh

¶30

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Bhagat Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Singh 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

M/S Mehak Enterprises Vs UOI and Others

Akash Deep Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Bhag Chand (Deceased through LRs Gian Chand and Others) Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Nardeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Rana Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others