Decided On : 01.08.2024 vs Himachal Pradesh Road Transport ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10853 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 01.08.2024 vs Himachal Pradesh Road Transport ... on 1 August, 2024

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

                                                                                                    2024:HHC:6183


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                           SHIMLA
                                      CWP No. 6609 of 2024
                                    Decided on : 01.08.2024
    Pola Singh




                                                                                              .
                                                ...Petitioner





                           Versus
    Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others.





                                                                                              ...Respondents
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting? 1





    For the petitioner    :   Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate.
    For the respondents :     Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta,
                              Advocate.
    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court, praying

for the following reliefs:-

"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased

to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the appeal (Annexure P-

8) with in time bound period in the interest of justice.

(ii) That the office order dated 10.02.1994 may kindly

be quashed and set-aside being unreasoned and cryptic order as

the same has been passed in contravention of the mandatory

provisions of the CCS(CCA) Rulues in the interest of justice."

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

interest of justice would be served in case the petition is

disposed with the direction that the appeal that has been filed 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2024:HHC:6183

by the petitioner and which is pending with the Appellate

Authority be disposed of within some reasonable time.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that

.

needful be positively done within a period of eight weeks from

today.

4. This Court is of the considered view that if the

appeal in issue which is stated to have been filed in the year

2016, has not been decided till date then needful should be

done by the Authority at the earliest. Therefore, this writ petition

be disposed with the direction that let an order be passed in the

appeal within a period of six weeks from today, after adhering

to the principles of natural justice. However, if appeal already

stands disposed of by the Appellate Authority then no fresh

order be passed by the Authority pursuant to the direction being

passed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

August 01, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)