Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajender Singh vs . Jagdish on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
Rajender Singh vs. Jagdish
.
CMP No.6902 of 2022 in
COPC No.179 of 2021
03.05.2023 Present Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate, for the applicants/
petitioners.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. P.P.Singh and
Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr.
Rahul Thakur, and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
Generals, for the respondent-State.
Pursuant to order dated 20.4.2023, Mr. Bharat Khera,
Principal Secretary, PWD has come present. He states that since
order alleged to have been violated was stayed by Division Bench of
this Court in LPA No.159 of 2022, coupled with the fact that
petitioners had filed another CWP No. 1465 of 2022, seeking therein
reliefs, which already stood granted to them in CWP No.1055 of
2019, titled Rajender Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and
others and Division Bench of this Court had granted six months time
to pay adequate compensation, nothing was required to be done by
the department in terms of order dated 20.4.2023.
Mr. P.P.Singh, learned Additional Advocate General
states that petitioners concealed factum with regard to fling of CWP
No. 1465 of 2022, seeking therein similar reliefs, as were prayed for,
in CWP No.1055 of 2019. He further states that LPA, laying therein
challenge to order dated 30.8.2022 passed in the instant proceedings
was disposed of as having rendered infructuous on account of
subsequent judgment dated 31st October, 2022 passed by Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No.1465 of 2022. He contends that since
Division Bench of this Court had already granted six months time to
pay adequate compensation, directions contained in the judgment
dated 17.5.2022 passed in CWP No.1055 of 2019, which is subject
matter of the present proceedings has lost its efficacy and as such,
.
present application deserves outright dismissal.
Ms. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel representing the
applicants-petitioners while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing
of CWP No.1465 of 2022,seeking therein reliefs, which stood already
granted to the petitioners vide judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1055 of 2019, contends that
mere filing of subsequent petition would not render present contempt
petition infructuous, especially when mandate contained in the same
has been not implemented till date.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record, this Court finds that though
direction to pay adequate compensation stood passed against the
respondents vide order dated 17.05.2019 passed in CWP No.1055 of
2019, but petitioners on one hand filed contempt petition No.179 of
2021 for violation of the mandate contained in the judgment, but
simultaneously also filed another CWP No.1465 of 2022, praying
therein for the reliefs, which already stood granted to them in earlier
writ petition. Since in the subsequent case i.e. CWP No.1465 of
2022, Court granted six months time to the respondents to pay
adequate compensation, which period is yet to expire, there appears
to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General
that once Division Bench of this Court in subsequent writ petition, as
detailed hereinabove, has already granted six months time to pay the
compensation, direction contained in judgment dated 17.5.2019
passed in earlier CWP No.1055 of 2019 has lost its efficacy and as
such, respondents cannot be compelled to abide by the same.
Factum with regard to filing of subsequent petition i.e.
.
CWP No.1465 of 2022 was never brought to the notice of this Court,
as a result of which, this Court with a view to uphold the majesty of
law and to ensure compliance of the mandate contained in the
judgment dated 17.5.2029 passed in CWP No.1055 of 2019,
repeatedly adjourned the matter and passed harsh/strict orders
against the officer responsible for non execution/implementation of
the judgment alleged to have been violated.
r Though, now on account of subsequent development, as
have been taken note hereinabove, there appears to be no reason to
keep the present application alive and accordingly, same is disposed
of, but having taken note of conduct and approach of the petitioners,
whereby they not only wasted the precious time of the Court, but also
caused inconvenience to the respondents, this Court deems it fit to
impose costs, amounting to Rs. 15,000/- upon the petitioners,
payable to State Legal Services Authority within a period of four
weeks. Ordered accordingly.
However, it is made clear that in case petitioners fails to
deposit the cost, as quantified hereinabove, they would render
themselves liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the
Court. Needless to say, in view of the closure of the contempt
petition, observations/structures, if any, made in order dated
8.07.2022 passed in the contempt petition against the officer
concerned shall have no consequence and shall be deemed to have
been expunged. The application stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
May 03,2023
(shankar)
