Moti Shiri vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1682 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                   CWP No. 3301 of 2020




                                                                       .
                                                   Decided on: 05.03.2021.





      Moti Shiri                                                   ....Petitioner.

                    Versus





      State of Himachal Pradesh and others                         ...Respondents.
      Coram
      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
      Whether approved for reporting?1 No





      For the petitioner    :    M/s Rajiv Rai and Gurudev Singh,
                                 Advocates.

      For the respondents          :       M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur
                                           and Sanjeev Sood, Additional
                      r                    Advocate General with M/s Kamal

                                           Kant Chandel and Divya Sood,
                                           Deputy Advocate Generals for
                                           respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5.

                                   :       Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate for


                                           respondent No. 4.

                                   :       Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate for
                                           respondent No. 6.




      Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

for the following substantive reliefs:-

"(i) That respondents No. 5 and 6 may kindly be

directed to enter the name of the petitioner and his

family in the parivar Register Record of Gram

Panchayat Lippa, Tehsil Moorang, District Kinnaur,

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Himachal Pradesh in pursuant to the application

dated 23.09.2019 vide Annexure P/1, forthwith.

.

B. That the respondent No. 5 and 6 may kindly be

directed to pay a compensation at least to the tune

of Rupees 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) on account

of harassment cause by him to the petitioner.

C. that the respondent No. 2 and 3 may kindly be

directed to initiate departmental enquiry/

proceeding against the respondents No. 5 and 6 for

his willful and intentional dereliction in discharge

of his duty."

(ii) That the respondents are directed to pay back

the amount which has been recovered by the

respondents from his pension."

2. Learned Additional Advocate General informs the

Court that grievance of the petitioner stands redressed as now

name of the petitioner and his family have been entered in the

Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat Lippa, Tehsil Moorang, District

Kinnaur.

3. Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that though the nameof the petitioner has now been

entered in the Parivar Register, but it is only after the notice was

issued by this Court in this writ petition filed by the petitioner and

it is on account of inaction on the part of the authorities concerned

that persons like the petitioner have to run from pillar to post even

for their valid and admissible rights. He further submits that as

.

some public servants are not performing their duty, this is an

extremely serious issue as litigations are easily avoidable if public

authorities do their duties diligently.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and

having gone through the pleadings of the case, this Court finds

force in the submissions so made by Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned

Counsel for the petitioner. Apparently, there was no infirmity in

the application etc. which was made by the petitioner for inclusion

of his name in the parivar register, yet it was only after a notice

stood issued by this Court in the present writ petition that the

authorities did their duty. The Court taking a serious note of this

through the office of learned Advocate General intends to bring the

fact to the notice of the executive authorities concerned that in

future this kind of lacklusture attitude on the part of public

authorites shall not be appreciated by the Court and if such kind

of omissions are repeated, then the concerned authorities shall

have to be ready to face the consequences.

With these observations, the writ petition stands

disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.

                                              (Ajay Mohan Goel)
    March 05, 2021                                      Judge
         (narender)