(1.) By way of this writ petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
(2.) When this case was taken up for consideration, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that Annexure P-5, which is the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, in the appeal, which was filed under Section 181 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayati Raj Act' for short) by the present petitioner is non est in the eyes of law as the order which stood impugned before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, by way of said appeal, in fact, was appelable under the provisions of Section 131 of the Panchayati Raj Act before Director, Panchayati Raj and not before the Divisional Commissioner. In order to substantiate his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 131 (3) of the Panchayati Raj Act, which inter alia provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which might have been passed under Section 131 (2) of the Panchayati Raj Act, may within 30 days from the date of decision, file an appeal to the Director or the State Government, whose orders on such appeal shall be final. On this count alone, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that present petition be allowed and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure P-5), be quashed and set aside so that petitioner can approach the authority for filing the appeal, as is envisaged under the Panchayati Raj Act.
(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General as also Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the caveator have submitted that because the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was preferred by the present petitioner, after dismissal of the said appeal on merit, he cannot be permitted to take said plea. As per them, petitioner is indulging in the abuse of process of law.