Himachal Pradesh HC: Process Can Be Cancelled By Deputy Commissioner to Rectify Delegation of Powers

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

On 18th December 2020, a Single Judge Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur heard the case of Kamal Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. The petition was filed against the cancellation of the process for reservation and rotation of seats for the members of municipalities, by the Deputy Commissioner undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officers (SDMs). The petition also sought to condemn the fresh process undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the action of the Deputy Commissioner was arbitrary, mala fide, and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Facts of the case

In Himachal Pradesh, reservation and rotation of seats of members of municipalities (Nagar Parishads and Nagar Panchayats) had been undertaken as prescribed by the State Election Commission under Section 281 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994. The process of reservation and rotation was undertaken by the Deputy Commissioners of their respective districts as provided under Rule 10 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, 2015.

The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur had authorized Sub Divisional Officers (Civil) (SDOs) to undertake the process of reservation and rotation of municipalities (Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads) in their respective sub-divisions. The said process was undertaken and a schedule of reservation of seats of members of Municipalities was declared. 

The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the process of determining the schedule undertaken by the Sub-Divisional Officers, on the ground that the process was not in accordance with Rule 10 of Election Rules and provisions of the Act, and thus undertook the process himself. 

Contentions of the petitioner

Mr. Anoop Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that once the process is delegated and undertaken by the SDOs, the Deputy Commissioner cannot undo the exercise without any reason/evidence placed on record, in order to justify such an action. 

The petitioner placed reliance on Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Vs. Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat and others, (2020) 6 SCC 548, which held that, “any decision sought and rendered will not amount to ‘calling in question an election’ if it subserves the progress of election and facilitates the completion of election and action taken or order issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies.”

Contentions of the Respondent

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, referred to the case of Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, and contended that the cancellation of the process by the Deputy Commissioner was justified for rectifying procedural irregularity which he was competent to do so within his powers, and the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was not applicable in the case. 

The Counsel referred to the case of Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579, which held that, “He who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers”. In this case, the petitioner failed to prove the invalidity of the act undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner. 

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner who is also District Election Officer (Municipalities) under Rule 32(1) of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Election Rules, does not have the power to delegate powers conferred upon him under Rule 10 of Election Rules. Therefore, the action of delegation of the process to the SDOs by the Deputy Commissioner was contrary to the law. 

Further, it was not the case that the Deputy Commissioner was unable to perform his duties or was on leave, but in fact his office was occupied. Therefore, the SDOs were not performing the duties of the office of Deputy Commissioner in place of the Deputy Commissioner, as the Deputy Commissioner was available. Thus, the SDOs were never authorized, appointed or deputed to perform the duties of the office of Deputy Commissioner.

The Court further observed that according to the well settled position of law, the power to do, also includes the power to undo. The Court referred to Section 20 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, and observed that the power to make an order, also includes the power to add, amend, vary or rescind the said order. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner by cancelling the process had acted within his jurisdiction, and acted lawfully in order to rectify his mistake of delegating powers to the SDOs. 

Court’s Decision

The Court held that since the delegation of power by the Deputy Commissioner to the SDOs was illegal and void, therefore the Court need not interfere in the cancellation done by the Deputy Commissioner. Further, the action undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner was not mala fide, and was not in violation of A.14 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, the petition was dismissed by the Court. 

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -