The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors vs Jagat Ram
2024 Latest Caselaw 7711 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors vs Jagat Ram on 15 June, 2024

Author: Vivek Singh Thakur

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

           Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:3648 ) generated successfully.




                                                                       .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA





                                        LPA No. 160 of 2024
                                       Date of Decision: 15.06.2024





The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
                                                                        ....Appellants





                                             Versus
Jagat Ram
                                                                     ....Respondents
Coram


Hon'ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellants                :     Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with


                                        Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
                                        Advocate General.

For the Respondent                :     None






Vivek Singh Thakur,Judge (oral)

Present appeal has been preferred by the State against the

judgment dated 29.09.2023 passed by Learned Single Judge in CWP No.

4066 of 20203. titled as Jagat Ram & Others versus State of Himachal

Pradesh and others alongwith other connected matters. The relevant

part of the judgment reads as under:-

"2. Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute raised in the instant petitions, has been

____________

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

adjudicated by this Court in case Anant Ram & Ors. v. State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No. 1660 of 2020, decided on 15.6.2023, as such, petitioners would be

.

content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to

the respondents to consider and decide cases of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment.

3. Learned General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

4. Having taken note of the issue raised in the petitions vis-à-vis judgment relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioners, this court finds that the

issue has been adjudicated by this Court in Anant Ram, supra, as such no prejudice would be caused to either of parties, in case a direction is issued to the

respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in light of Anant Ram, supra.

5. Consequently, in view of above, present petitions

are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners,

expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from today, in light of Anant Ram supra. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings, before appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved."

2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the

Civil Writ Petition for convenience.

3. It is apparent from Para 2 of the impugned order that it was

submitted by learned counsel for the parties including the Learned

Advocate General that the dispute involved in the petition had already

.

been adjudicated by this High Court, in case of Anant Ram versus State

of H.P. and others, CWPOA No.1660 of 2020, decided on 15.06.2023 and

in the said background it was submitted that petitioners would be

contended and satisfied, in case, direction was issued to the

State/Department to consider and decide their cases in light of the said

judgment. r

4. By taking note of the aforesaid submissions, learned Single

Judge has directed the department/concerned authority to consider and

decide the case of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a

period of 12 weeks from the date of passing of the order in light of

Anant Ram's case referred supra. It has further been directed by

learned Single Judge that appropriate decision will be taken by the

concerned authority by passing a speaking order after affording

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and liberty was reserved to the

petitioners to avail appropriate remedy, if they still remained

aggrieved.

5. In the aforesaid facts, learned Additional Advocate General

is not able to point out any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the

impugned order.

6. Otherwise also, vide judgment dated 29.09.2023, the cases

of the petitioners have not been decided on merit but direction has been

given to the competent authority to consider and decide the same in

light of the Anant Ram's case.

7. It is also apt to record that similar Later Patent Appeal No.

.

149 of 2024, titled State of H.P. vs. Shweta Chauhan arising out of the

same common judgment has already been dismissed by this Court on

10.06.2024.

8. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly

the appeal is dismissed. By taking a lenient view, we are refraining from

imposing cost upon the State.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) (Judge)

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

15th June, 2024 (veena)