Ntpc Ltd vs Subhash Chand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4357 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                ON THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

                            BEFORE




                                                      .

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,

                      ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE





                                 &
             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

               LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.94 of 2021





       Between:-

       NTPC LTD.,
       KOLDAM HYDRO POWER PROJECT,

       VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BARMANA,

       TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR,
       H.P. 174013 THROUGH ITS
       SENIOR MANAGER (HR-R&R)
                                                      ......APPELLANT


       (BY SH. JAGDISH THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

       AND




    1. SUBHASH CHAND
       S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM,





       R/O VILLAGE CHAMYON,
       POST OFFICE HARNORA,
       TEHSIL SADAR,





       DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
    2. RAM KUMAR
       S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM,
       R/O VILLAGE CHAMYON,
       POST OFFICE HARNORA,
       TEHSIL SADAR,
       DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:01:17 :::CIS
                                      -2-


    3. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
       THROUGH SECRETARY (REVENUE)
       GOVT. OF H.P., SHIMLA-2
    4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       BILASPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.




                                                            .

    5. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
       NATIONAL THERMAL POWER
       PROJECT, KOLDAM,





       DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
                                                       ......RESPONDENTS
         (SH. R.K. GAUTAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE
         WITH MS. KIRAN LATA SHARMA,





         ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 AND R-2
         SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
         WITH SH. RANJAN SHARMA, MS. RITTA
         GOSWAMI & SH. VIKAS RATHORE,

         ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,

         FOR R-3 TO R-5)

          This Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
    Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, delivered the following:



                              JUDGMENT

CMP No.5309 of 2021

There is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking

leave to file this appeal. The reason assigned is that they were not a

party to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. However,

orders had been passed, which affect the interest of the proposed

appellant.

2. Hence, for the reasons assigned, the application is allowed.

The applicant is permitted to prosecute this appeal.

3. The application is disposed off.

CMP(M) No.343 of 2021

4. There is a delay of 11 years, 6 months and 22 days in filing

.

the appeal. In support of the reasons assigned for delay, it is stated

that similar matters were being considered by the learned Single

Judge. One such order is the order in CWP No.755 of 2008, dated

27.08.2008. The said order was challenged by the very appellant

herein in LPA No.66 of 2010. By the order dated 27.02.2018, the

appeal was allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge was set

aside and the matter was directed to be considered afresh by the

learned Single Judge. Thereafter, execution petition was brought

about to execute the order passed by the learned Single Judge in

the instant appeal. On those grounds, the writ petition was disposed

off.

5. It is stated that the appellant was under the bona-fide belief

that since the connected appeals have been filed, an appeal has

been filed in this matter also. However, it transpired that the

concerned official was also under the mistaken notion that an appeal

in the third case was also filed. In fact, appeal was filed only in one

case and not in this case (CWP No.755 of 2008). Therefore, we are

of the view that the reason assigned in the application constitutes

sufficient cause. It is a bona-fide mistake. Hence, the delay in filing

the appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed off.

.

LPA No.94 of 2021

7. Admit.

8. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge, following the earlier order passed by this Court. Since

the first order passed in CWP No.755 of 2008 as well as the first

order passed in CWP No.639 of 2005 being similar and the matter

having been sent back to the learned Single Judge for

reconsideration, it is only just and appropriate that a similar order be

passed in this appeal also. There cannot be conflicting orders

pertaining to the same subject matter.

9. For this reason, the instant appeal is allowed. The order dated

27.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.639 of

2005 and the order dated 04.06.2010 passed in CMP No.2952 of

2008 are set aside. The matter is to be considered by the learned

Single Judge on merits. The learned Single Judge is requested to

consider the application for impleadment said to have been filed and

disposed off by the learned Single Judge. Pending miscellaneous

applications are also disposed off.

Post CWP No.639 of 2005 alongwith CWP No.755 of 2008

before the learned Single Judge.

.

                                                  ( Ravi Malimath )
                                                Acting Chief Justice





                                               ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
    September 06, 2021                                 Judge





      Bhardwaj/Mukesh