High Court questions Panchkula delimitation

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Ramesh Kumari, today issued notice to the State of Haryana in a petition filed by Gautam Prasad and another against the constitution of an ad-hoc body for the delimitation of wards in Municipal Corporation (MC), Panchkula. The petition, argued by Senior Advocate DS Patwalia, with advocates Gaurav Rana and Ravinder Rawal representing the petitioners, challenges a recent government order on grounds of alleged violation of the statutory procedure.

The State was represented by Anu Pal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. In the proceedings, it was submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that the impugned order dated September 16 and the accompanying letter did not comply with the Haryana Municipal Corporation Delimitation of Ward Rules, 1994. They contended that the government, bypassing the mandated process, directly nominated certain members to the ad-hoc body, thereby usurping the powers that the rules exclusively vest with the ad-hoc body itself. The petitioners argued that such government nomination was without jurisdiction and undermined the democratic principle of adequate representation of various groups or interests as envisaged in Rule 4 of the 1994 Rules.

Alleging the move as arbitrary and contrary to law, counsel for the petitioners highlighted that the composition of the ad-hoc body —where six out of nine members, including all associate members, were from one political party — amounted to monopolisation of the delimitation process. The petition refers to the inconsistent approach of the State, contrasting it with the process followed for the Sonepat Municipal Corporation, where an opposition member was included, underlining an alleged arbitrariness.

After hearing preliminary submissions, the court issued notice of motion and granted time to the State to file its reply. The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 28, 2025. The petitioners have also sought a stay on the operation of the impugned order and the functioning of the ad-hoc body pending the outcome of the case, citing the grave prejudice and violation of democratic norms that would result if the delimitation process continues under the existing ad-hoc body.