Himachal Pradesh High Court | Divisional Commissioner Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Remand Order | Cannot Reopen and Rehear Same Appeal Without Review or Higher Court’s Direction
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, on 25 August 2025, quashed the order dated 13 August 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to decide the matter in terms of the remand order previously issued. The Court held that once an appeal has been allowed and remanded, the Divisional Commissioner becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to reopen or rehear the same appeal unless reviewed or set aside by a superior authority. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
The matter arose out of a writ petition filed challenging the order dated 13 August 2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in Appeal No. 112 of 2025. By the impugned order, the appeal filed against the Deputy Commissioner’s earlier order was dismissed.
The dispute originated from the issuance of a notification dated 31 May 2025 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner, being aggrieved by this notification, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. In terms of the order dated 24 June 2025 (Annexure P-4), the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, for fresh adjudication.
Following the remand, the petitioner filed objections concerning the delimitation of Ward Nos. 13 and 14 of Choppal, District Shimla, before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner expressed confusion, stating that he lacked the authority to decide the objections afresh after the Divisional Commissioner had already passed orders in appeal. In response, the Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner.
On 31 July 2025, the Divisional Commissioner recorded that the case had already been disposed of by his order dated 24 June 2025, which had accepted the appeal under Rule 10 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to hear and decide the objections after affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The Divisional Commissioner noted the Deputy Commissioner’s submission, made by letter dated 18 July 2025, that there was no provision to hear and decide objections after an appeal had been decided under Rule 10, since the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner were final.
The matter was thereafter taken up with the State Election Commission. By communication dated 29 July 2025, the State Election Commission directed that the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, should finally dispose of the appeal immediately. Acting on this communication, the Divisional Commissioner again assumed authority, issued notice to the parties, and reheard the matter. Subsequently, by order dated 13 August 2025, the appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner challenged this action on the ground that once the Divisional Commissioner had already allowed the appeal and remanded the matter, he had become functus officio and lacked the jurisdiction to reopen and rehear the appeal. It was also submitted that the order dated 13 August 2025 was passed without jurisdiction and behind the petitioner’s back.
The respondents contended that the action was based on the directions of the State Election Commission to dispose of the matter. The learned Additional Advocate General produced the original record, including the State Election Commission’s letter and the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
The Court proceeded to examine the factual sequence, the provisions of Rule 10 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, and the actions of both the Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, upon perusal of the record, observed: “Perusal thereof demonstrates that after the remand order was passed by learned Divisional Commissioner Shimla, thereafter on 31.07.2025, learned Divisional Commissioner passed the following order: ‘This case has already been disposed of vide this Court order dated 24.06.2025.’”
The Court noted that the Divisional Commissioner himself had earlier acknowledged that the case already stood disposed of by order dated 24 June 2025. The learned Judge recorded that the Divisional Commissioner had accepted the appeal and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to hear and decide the objections after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
The Court further observed that the Deputy Commissioner, by his letter dated 18 July 2025, had expressed his inability to decide the objections afresh because as per Rule 10 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, the orders passed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner were final.
Justice Goel recorded: “In view of provision under Rule 10 Deputy Commissioner Shimla has expressed his inability to hear and decide the objection afresh and further has sought guidance to this effect.”
The record demonstrated that the Divisional Commissioner then took up the matter with the State Election Commission, which issued a letter dated 29 July 2025 directing him to finally dispose of the appeal. Based on this communication, the Divisional Commissioner again assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to rehear and dismiss the appeal.
The Court, however, recorded: “It is evident that the office of learned Divisional Commissioner did not point out to the State Election Commission that the appeal already stood disposed of vide order 24.06.2025 and the matter stood remanded to the learned Deputy Commissioner.”
Justice Goel stated that when the Divisional Commissioner had already disposed of the appeal on 24 June 2025, the authority had become functus officio and could not reopen the matter suo motu. The Court observed: “Otherwise also, when the learned Divisional Commissioner had already disposed of the appeal earlier in terms of order dated 24.06.2025, the authority had become functus officio and until and unless the order passed by the Authority was either reviewed, if the authority was having the power to review, or set aside by a superior authority and remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner, there was no power vested with the learned Divisional Commissioner to again hear an appeal already decided by the said authority in exercise of its quasi-judicial power.”
The Court further stated: “There is no power vested in the Divisional Commissioner to suo moto again revive an appeal which has been decided by it earlier.”
The Judge recorded that perversity was writ large on the face of the record, as once the appeal was allowed, the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reopen and rehear the same.
In light of the above observations, the Court allowed the writ petition. The judgment stated: “In the light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 13.08.2025 is quashed and set aside and Deputy Commissioner Shimla is directed now to decide the matter in terms of the remand order passed by the Divisional Commissioner expeditiously.”
The Court further directed that the record be returned and ordered that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Manish Dharmaik v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Case Number: CWP No. 13426 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
