The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by a Sundernagar resident challenging the recently notified ward delimitation, remarking that the Court cannot “redraw boundaries merely because an individual is dissatisfied.” I attended the hearing, and the bench-though calm-seemed clearly unconvinced by the petitioner’s arguments.
Background
The petitioner, Shiv Singh Sen, had approached the Court after both the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, and later the Divisional Commissioner rejected his objections to the new delimitation of wards of the Municipal Council, Sundernagar.
According to the petition, Ward No. 4 (Salah) allegedly ended up with a much higher population post-delimitation-nearly 2,585 as per the SDM’s official tabulation on page 6 of the file-compared to other wards. He claimed this would affect development funding and violate Rule 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Council Election Rules, 2015, which says each ward should have “as far as practicable” equal population.
The State, however, pointed out that the delimitation was notified in the Gazette on 4 July 2025, even before the appellate order, implying that the challenge had lost practical relevance.
Court’s Observations
The hearing began with the bench revisiting its earlier direction requiring the State to produce ward-wise population data. The SDM’s detailed table (page 6) showed that not only Ward 4 but Wards 11, 12, and 13 also crossed the 2,000 mark, with Ward 13 (East Colony) reaching 2,741.
At one point, the judge asked the petitioner’s counsel whether they alleged any mala fide action in the delimitation. The counsel admitted, “No mala fides are being alleged,” which immediately shifted the tone. The bench observed, “If you don’t claim any manipulation or bad intention, how do you expect judicial review to re-draw boundaries?”
The State Election Commission, through its counsel, reiterated that boundaries were drawn using natural markers like rivers and nallahs, which, in their words, “cannot be realigned every time someone raises a personal grievance.”
When the petitioner argued that unequal population alone should trigger interference, the Court pushed back. The judge noted that Rule 4’s use of “as far as practicable” gives authorities a reasonable margin, especially in hilly terrains where natural boundaries cannot be moved.
The Divisional Commissioner’s order-quoted extensively in the Court’s discussion-also played a strong role. It stated that a ward cannot be reorganised “solely on the basis of an individual’s grievance,” and such redrawing would force thousands of residents to update Aadhaar, ration cards, and voter IDs unnecessarily.
The High Court seemed to agree with this caution, observing that there was “nothing perverse” in the Commissioner’s reasoning. At one stage, the judge remarked, “Courts are not here to micro-manage administrative maps unless something blatantly illegal is shown.”
Decision
After hearing both sides, the Court concluded that there was no defect in the delimitation process that warranted interference. It found no violation of Rule 4, no mala fide, and no factual basis to the petitioner’s claim that other wards had populations only between 1,000 and 1,400-something directly contradicted by the SDM’s data on page 6.
The bench dismissed the petition, stating that the appellate authority’s order “cannot be termed perverse or improper.” With that, the matter was closed, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Shiv Singh Sen vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Case Number: CWP No. 12051 of 2025
Case Type: Civil Writ Petition (Delimitation Challenge)
(Petition challenging ward delimitation of Municipal Council Sundernagar)
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Decision Date: 11 November 2025
Parties’ Representation:
- For Petitioner: Vinod Chauhan & Nandita, Advocates
- For State (Respondents 1–3): Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General
- For Respondent No. 4: Surinder K. Sharma, Advocate
- For Respondent No. 5: Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate