Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of H.P. & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 10215 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                  CWP No. 8337 of 2022




                                                                                 .
                                                  Decided on: 01.12.2022





    Sanjay Kumar                                                  ...Petitioner

                                         Versus





    The State of H.P. & Ors.                                                ...Respondents

    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.

    For the Petitioner :                 Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
                             r           Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the
                                         petitioner.

    For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Rajinder
                       Dogra, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr.
                       Shiv Pal Manhans,Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Bhupinder


                       Thakur, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law
                       Officer, for respondents -State.

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. It is rather unfortunate that even after the Court had

examined the issue, in detail, in its judgment dated 15.11.2022,

the Superintendent of Police, Nahan, has once again rejected the

case of the petitioner by passing an order, which is bereft of any

reason.

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

3. Why we observe so is that admittedly a criminal case

is pending against the petitioner, which was working to his

.

disadvantage and it was for this precise reason that this Court

had asked the respondents to consider the gravity and nature of

offence and only thereafter take a decision.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Nahan, has not even

cared or bothered to go into the order passed by this Court and

what is still worse that he failed to appreciate not only the letter

but even the spirit of the order, more especially, the conclusion

that was drawn in para 21, that too, after discussing the issue

threadbare from paras 6 to 20 of the judgment.

5. This tendency of avoiding decision making by the

officer/official entrusted with far greater duties and responsibilities

neither augur well with the system nor with this Court.

6. It is high time such officers accept responsibilities

and apply their minds, more particularly, to the orders passed by

the Court.

7. Accordingly, the order passed by the Superintendent

of Police, Nahan, on 26.11.2022 is quashed and set aside and the

matter is once again remitted to the said Superintendent of

Police, to take a decision afresh keeping in view not only the

letter but also the spirit of the order passed by this Court.

8. Needful be done within one week.

9. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms, so also pending applications, if any.

.

For compliance to come up on 08.12.2022.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

st 1 December, 2022 (sanjeev) r to (Virender Singh) Judge