Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 29.10.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:10461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.12241 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Ritu Bhalla .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.D.Verma and Mr. Ajay Sharma,
Senior Advocates with Mr. Atharv Sharma
and Sumeet Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Since despite there being representation made by the
petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, thereby
requesting to implement the order passed by Financial Commissioner
(Appeals) Shimla in Revision petition No.45 of 2019, dated 28.02.2020,
titled as Ritu Bhalla versus State of Himachal Pradesh, no steps have
been taken by the said authority, petitioner is compelled to approach this
Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:-
" That the impugned action of District Collector, Solan and
Tehsildar Nalagarh, which amounts to executive in action
may be quashed and set-aside with directions to the said
respondents to immediately and forthwith implement the
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:10461
judgments passed by learned Financial Commissioner
(Appeals) and of this Hon'ble Court in its letter and spirit in
the shape of attesting the mutation in the interest of law and
justice."
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted
in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior
counsel representing the petitioner, is that though order passed by Financial
Commissioner(Appeals), Shimla in Revision Petition No. 45 of 2019, dated
28.02.2020, has been further upheld by this Court vide judgment dated
30.04.2024 passed in CWP No.1389 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal
Pradesh versus Smt. Ritu Bhalla, but yet authority responsible to
implement the aforesaid order, is not taking steps to implement the
mandate contained in the order passed by Financial Commissioner
(Appeals), Shimla.
3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed
to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call
for the reply from the respondent-State, which otherwise is being
represented by learned Additional Advocate General.
4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition,
especially relief prayed therein, learned Additional Advocate General states
that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, if not already decided,
shall be decided expeditiously.
5. Having taken note of the fact that order dated 28.02.2020
passed by Financial Commissioner(Appeals), Shimla in Revision Petition
No.45 of 2019, has been further upheld by this Court vide judgment dated
30.04.2024 passed in CWP No.1389 of 2021 and there is nothing to
2024:HHC:10461
suggest that aforesaid judgment passed by this Court has been laid
challenge in the superior Court of law, there appears to be no impediment in
issuing direction to Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan, Himachal
Pradesh to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, wherein
request has been made to implement the aforesaid judgment.
6. Consequently, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to Deputy
Commissioner, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. to decide the
pending representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-2)
expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Needless to say,
authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall
afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other
stakeholders and pass detailed order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if it still
remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 29, 2024
(shankar)
