CWP/472/2017 on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 472 of 2017 Date of Decision: 31.12.2018 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Paresh Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another …..Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with M/s. Ranjan Sharma and Adarsh K. Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals. Surya Kant, Chief Justice

(Oral): Notification dated 3rd March, 2017 purportedly issued in exercise of the Executive Powers conferred under Article 154(1) of the Constitution of India notifying “Dharamshala, District Kangra”, as “Second Capital of the State of Himachal Pradesh”, is under challenge on various grounds in this writ petition filed in public interest.

2. Though the State of Himachal Pradesh has filed the written statement justifying the impugned Notification but fact of the matter is that the same has not been given effect so far. It thus appears that a 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

High Court of H.P. 2018:HHC:9549-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 14:35:04 :::CIS

fresh thought process is going on in the mind of the State Government, due to which the matter has been got adjourned from time to time.

3. As far as Article 154(1) of the Constitution of India is concerned, Sub Article (1) says that the Executive Powers of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through Officers subordinate to him, in accordance with this Constitution. The decision taken under Sub Article (1) of Article 154 thus can always be reviewed, recalled, revisited by the competent authority.

4. We are thus of the view that instead of keeping the matter sub­judice before this Court due to which the State Government might be reluctant to revisit the whole issue, let this writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the respondents to take an appropriate decision afresh, as may be deemed appropriate in public interest and till such time the impugned Notification, which is yet to be given effect, be kept in abeyance. Ordered accordingly. In the event of any fresh decision, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach the Court again.

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Surya Kant)

Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 31, 2018 (Guleria/K)

High Court of H.P. 2018:HHC:9549-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 14:35:04 :::CIS