Between vs State Of Hp (Cwp-T No.2028/2008)
2021 Latest Caselaw 4686 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
              ON THE 23rd 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.345 of 2012




    1.
         Between:-


         TARA CHAND THAKUR,

         SON OF LATE SHRI HEM SARAN,

         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
         SHALANGRA, POST OFFICE
         BAYCHARI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
         SHIMLA, (H.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED
         AS SUPERINTENDENT GR.-II


         IN THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT
         EXCISE & TAXATION
         COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT KANGRA,




         AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
    2.   GITA RAM THAKUR,
         SON OF LATE SHRI ASHA RAM,





         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHADIANA
         (KHALAG), P.O. JUBERHATTI,
         TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA





         (H.P.), PRESENTLY WORKING AS
         SUPDT. GRADE-II IN THE OFFICE
         OF EXCISE & TAXATION
         COMMISSIONER, SHIMLA, H.P.
                                                   ......APPELLANTS
         (BY SH. ADARSH K. VASHISTA,
         ADVOCATE)




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:07:11 :::CIS
                               -2-


         AND

    1.   ARUN KUMAR JASSAL,
         SON OF LATE SHRI AMAR




                                                     .
         NATH, RESIDENT OF 26/2,





         BOILEAUGANJ, SHIMLA-5,
         PRESENTLY WORKING AS
         EXCISE & TAXATION





         INSPECTOR, SOLAN,
         CIRCLE-I, SOLAN, (H.P.).
    2.   STATE OF HIMACHAL
         PRADESH THROUGH ITS
         PRINCIPAL SECRETARY





         (EXCISE & TAXATION),
         GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
         PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.
    3.   THE COMMISSIONER

         (EXCISE & TAXATION)
         TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

         HIMACHAL PRADESH,
         SHIMLA-171009.
    4.   SURINDER KUMAR,
         SON OF SHRI DUNI CHAND,


         PRESENTLY POSTED AS
         EXCISE & TAXATION
         OFFICER, DALHOUSIE
         CIRCLE AT BANIKHET,




         DISTRICT CHAMBA (H.P.).
    5.   RANJIT SINGH KAUNDAL,





         SON OF SHRI FANDHI
         RAM, PRESENTLY POSTED
         AS EXCISE AND TAXATION





         OFFICER, MULTIPURPOSE
         BARRIER, GANGRET,
         DISTRICT UNA (H.P.).                ......RESPONDENTS

         (SH. RAMAN SETHI,
          ADVOCATE, FOR R-1
         SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SENIOR
         ADDITIOANL ADVOCATE
         GENERAL, FOR R-2 & R-3)




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:07:11 :::CIS
                                      -3-


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




                                                              .
                                JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2012, passed by

the learned Single Judge in CWP No.180 of 2010, the instant appeal

has been filed by persons who are claiming to be affected by the

contemplated actions of the respondents therein.

2.

The learned Single Judge, while considering the case of

the petitioner therein, directed the respondents to consider the

petitioner's case based on the judgment rendered by this Court in

Bidhi Chand vs State of HP (CWP-T No.2028/2008).

3. We are of the considered view that the appellants

herein cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said order. Even

though, they were not parties before the learned Single Judge,

there is no reason to challenge the said order. It is only an order

directing consideration of the case of the petitioner. It is only when

the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents and such

a consideration affects the legal rights of the appellants, the same

would constitute a cause of action for them to challenge the same.

The impugned order, in our considered view, does not affect any

legal right of the appellants.

4. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application is disposed off.

.

( Ravi Malimath )

Acting Chief Justice

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge September 23, 2021 ( Himalvi/Yashwant )