SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh high court on Tuesday stayed the order of delimitation of Nabha and Summerhill wards of Shimla municipal corporation, passed by the Shimla deputy commissioner and upheld by the Shimla divisional commissioner.
The court stayed impugned orders and directed the respondents, secretary urban development, divisional commissioner Shimla, deputy commissioner Shimla and HP State Election Commission, to file a reply. The case has been adjourned for August 16.
A division bench comprising Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya passed these orders on two separate petitions filed by Simi Nanda and Rajeev Thakur.
The petitioners had earlier approached the high court on the matter. The court had found that the deputy commissioner had failed to consider the factual aspect of the submissions raised by the petitioners.
The court had observed that the deputy commissioner was required to take into consideration the fact that equal population as far as practicable in each ward be maintained and each ward was also required to maintain geographical compactness and contiguous in areas and recognizable boundaries. He was more influenced by the fact that no ECI polling stations should transgress the boundaries, which however does not find mention in the rules.
The court vide order dated June 3 this year, passed on the earlier petitions, set aside the impugned orders passed by the deputy commissioner, Shimla, and Appellate Authority that is Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, qua delimitation of ward number 11-Nabha (new ward number 12-Nabha) and ward number 5- Summerhill (new ward number 6-Summerhill).
The matter was remanded back to the deputy commissioner, Shimla, with directions to decide the objections raised by the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law, after appreciating the material available on record.
The deputy commissioner vide order dated June 24 again rejected the objections filed by the petitioners, holding that the delimitation orders are as per the provisions laid down in the HP Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and Municipal Corporation Election Rules, 2012, and there is no need to make any change in the order. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned order was also rejected by the divisional commissioner.
The petitioners again approached the high court with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated June 24, passed by the deputy commissioner, and order dated July 8 passed by the divisional commissioner, Shimla, on appeal.
