Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the present writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Authority) wherein the petitioner’s appeal, related to the delimitation constituencies of Zila Parishad of Shimla District, was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner and he himself had taken up the matter for decision. A Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., while allowing the petition, quashed the Divisional Commissioner’s order holding that he did not have the power to suo motu revive an already decided matter and directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the same.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by a notification regarding delimitation of Wards 13 and 14 in Choppal, dated 31-05-2025, filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The petitioner’s appeal under Rule 10 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (‘1994 Rules’), had already been allowed by the Divisional Commissioner on 24-06-2025, remainding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh adjudication. It was stated that the Deputy Commissioner confused himself in deciding the appeal in remand and referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, stating that he did not have any authority to decide the objections afresh, as there was no provision to decide the objections after the appeal was decided by the Divisional Commissioner, because Rule 10 of the 1994 Rules laid down that the orders passed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner would be final.
On 29-07-2025, the matter was taken up by the State Election Commission, which directed the Divisional Commissioner to finally dispose of the appeal immediately. The Divisional Commissioner, in his order dated 31-07-2025, pointed out that the case was already disposed of via the order dated 24-06-2025 and instead of directing the Deputy Commissioner to comply with the remand, the Divisional Commissioner himself assumed the authority and reheard the appeal, despite having already disposed of it. Upon re-hearing the appeal on merit, it was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 13-08-2025.
This dismissal was challenged by the petitioner contending that perversity was writ large on the face of the record itself as the Divisional Commissioner once having allowed the appeal, had no jurisdiction to reopen and rehear the same.
The Court observed that the Divisional Commissioner failed to inform the State Election Commission that the appeal had already been disposed of by order dated 24-06-2025, and the matter had been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner.
The Court opined that, having disposed of the appeal pursuant to the said order, the Divisional Commissioner had become functus officio and unless the order was either reviewed, if the Divisional Commissioner possessed such authority, or it was set aside by a superior authority and remanded for reconsideration; the Divisional Commissioner lacked the power to rehear the appeal already decided in the exercise of his quasi-judicial powers.
Therefore, the Court held that the Divisional Commissioner did not possess the authority to suo motu revive an appeal that had previously been decided.
Consequently, while allowing the petition, the Court quashed and set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 13-08-2025 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to expeditiously decide the matter in terms of the remand order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
[Manish Dharmaik v. State of H.P., CWP No.13426 of 2025, decided on 25-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: T.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Surya Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.
