Ward Boundaries Not Redrawn For Individual Grievance : Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Delimitation Challenge Under 2015 Civic Election Rules
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that electoral ward boundaries are not subject to change solely on the basis of an individual’s disagreement with how population has been allocated across wards. Deciding a challenge to the delimitation of Municipal Council, Sundernagar, the Court declined to interfere with the rejection of objections and the dismissal of the related appeal. The dispute centred on concerns about population figures assigned to one ward, which the petitioner claimed were disproportionate. The Court observed that delimitation is essentially an administrative task that requires assessment of multiple geographic and demographic factors, and found no basis to conclude that the authorities had breached their statutory obligations.
The matter concerns a challenge to the delimitation of wards of Municipal Council Sundernagar following the notification dated 24.05.2025 issued by the State Election Commission for delimitation of wards of Urban Local Bodies in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner filed objections to the draft delimitation notification in terms of Annexure P-2 dated 06.06.2025. These objections were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi through order dated 16.06.2025 on the ground that they lacked merit. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the competent Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.07.2025, leading to the present proceedings.
The petitioner’s contention was that Ward No. 4, Salah reflected an excessively high population after delimitation as compared to other wards, which, according to him, was contrary to the statutory mandate. He asserted that the increased population would adversely affect the development of the ward because the allotted financial and administrative resources would need to be divided among a disproportionately large number of residents.
The respondents submitted that the delimitation was undertaken in compliance with statutory requirements and geographical considerations, including natural boundaries such as river and nallah segments. They stated that altering delimitation at this stage would compromise the structural harmony of wards. The State Election Commission further submitted that the petition had lost efficacy because the delimitation had already been notified in the gazette on 04.07.2025 in terms of Annexure P-1.
As reflected in the tabulated population data submitted through instructions from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar dated 06.11.2025, several wards exceeded the population of 2000 post-delimitation, including Ward Nos. 11, 12 and 13, contrary to the petitioner’s assertion that Ward No. 4 alone was disproportionately populated.
The Court recorded that the petitioner’s argument was restricted to population-based disparity and “no other point was urged.” It noted that the petitioner did not allege mala fides nor assert that the wards lacked geographical compactness. The Court stated that “it is not the prerogative of this Court, nor the domain of this Court to advise the statutory authorities as to how the limits of the wards are to be fixed.”
With respect to the petitioner’s claim that only Ward No. 4 had abnormally high population, the Court referenced the figures provided through official instructions and stated that “besides ward No.4, ward Nos. 11, 12 and 13 also have population in excess of 2000.” It further recorded that “ward No.2 Baned has a population of 1845 and ward No.5 and ward No.10 have population in excess of 1700.”
The Court held that the absence of allegations of mala fides disfavoured intervention and observed that the delimitation process had been undertaken “taking into consideration various factors.” It also referred to the reasoning of the Appellate Authority, including the finding that “no substantial or cogent evidence indicating mala fides, arbitrariness or non-compliance with the Rules during the delimitation process” had been placed on record, and that there had been “no public outcry or collective representation from the affected residents.”
The order further noted the Appellate Authority’s observation that “if delimitation is carried out solely on the basis of an individual’s grievance, it would lead to unnecessary administrative complications… unless substantial and representative demand is raised by a significant section of the public.” The Court also acknowledged the recorded reasoning that attempts to equalize population by modifying a single ward would affect multiple wards and disrupt natural boundaries such as “rivers, nallah, etc.”
Having reviewed the appellate order, the Court stated that learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the reasoning was “either perverse or not borne out from the record of the case.” It concluded that the Appellate Authority had acted “in a manner not unwarranted from a quasi-judicial authority.”
The Court stated that the order passed by the Appellate Authority “calls for no interference” and recorded that the appellate order “cannot be termed as perverse nor it can be said that the order has been passed by the Authority in a manner i.e., unwarranted from a quasi-judicial authority.”
“Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the reasoning assigned in the order by the Divisional Commissioner is either perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. As this Court does not finds any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s Vinod Chauhan and Nandita, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General Mr. Surinder K. Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate
Case Title: Shiv Singh Sen vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:37820
Case Number: CWP No.12051 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
