Himachal Pradesh High Court
Aditi Papta vs Union Of India And Others on 5 November, 2024
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
( 2024:HHC:10987 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M)No. 1597 of 2024 alongwith LPA
No. 125 of 2024.
Date of decision: 05.11.2024.
1. CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024
Aditi Papta .....Appellant.
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents.
2. LPA No. 125 of 2024
Grant Thornton Bharat LLP ... Appellant.
Versus
Ms. Aditi Papta and others ... Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant in
CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024 and for
respondent No.1 in LPA No. 125 of
2024.
Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate, for
the appellant, in LPA No.125 of
2024 and for respondent No.4 in
CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Balram Sharma, Dy. Solicitor
General of India with Mr. Rajeev
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
( 2024:HHC:10987 )
Sharma, Advocate for the
respondents No.1 & 2 in CMP(M)
No. 1597 of 2024 and for
respondent No.3 & 4 in LPA No.
125 of 2024.
Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr.
Sushant Keprate, Mr. Pranay
Pratap Singh, Mr. Gobind Korla,
Additional Advocates General, Ms.
Priyanka Chauhan and Mr. Arsh
Rattan, Deputy Advocates
General, for respondent No. 3 in
CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024 and for
of 2024.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024.
Both the parties are aggrieved by the judgment passed
by the learned Writ Court on 08.04.2024 in CWP No. 3019 of 2024,
which reads as under:
"Though, prima facie this Court is convinced that
present petition is not maintainable, however, having taken
note of the fact that petitioner has already approached
respondent No.4 for redressal of her grievance, deems it fit
to dispose of the present petition with a direction to
respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation
sent through email (Annexure P-3 colly), expeditiously,
preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered
accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while
doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to
( 2024:HHC:10987 )
the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Liberty is
reserved to be petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in
appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any."
2. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 has been
registered as LPA No. 125 of 2024, whereas, in the appeal filed by
the writ petitioner, there is delay of 143 days' in filing of the appeal.
Since, the appeal filed on behalf respondent No.4 against the same
judgment is pending consideration, therefore, issue notice to the
respondents.
3. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Gobind Korla,
learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Shradha Karol,
Advocate appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the
respective respondents.
4. The mere fact that the appeal filed by respondent No.4
against the same judgment is pending consideration is by itself a
sufficient cause to condone the delay.
5. That apart, for the reasons stated in the application
which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant-appellant, we
deem it appropriate to condone 143 days' delay that has crept up in
filing of the appeal. Ordered accordingly. Application stands
disposed of.
6. Appeal be registered.
( 2024:HHC:10987 )
LPA No.358 of 2024 & LPA No. 125 of 2024.
7. As regards the writ petitioner, she by way of LPA
No.358 of 2024 takes exception to the findings prima facie recorded
regarding the maintainability of writ petition, whereas, respondent
No.4 takes exception to the further directions passed by the learned
Writ Court to consider and decide the representation made by the
writ petitioner. According to the appellant in LPA No. 125 of 2024,
once the petition was held to be prima facie not maintainable, then
no further directions to consider the representation of the writ
petitioner could have been passed by the learned Writ Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, we are of the considered view that since no firm findings
have been recorded by the learned Writ Court as regards the
maintainability of the writ petition and the findings as recorded, at
best are only prima facie, as is otherwise borne out from the
opening lines of the judgment dated 08.04.2024, it would be
appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Writ Court.
9. In the given facts and circumstances, we dispose of
these appeals by remitting the matter back to the learned Writ
Court to decide the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.
10. The case be listed before the learned Writ Court on
19.11.2024.
( 2024:HHC:10987 )
11. Before parting, it needs to be noticed that this order is
being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and shall not be treated as a precedent in future.
12. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Acting Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
5th November, 2024.
(krt/yogesh)
