Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Director Himurja vs Oasis Power Project Private Limited on 10 January, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
LPA No. 189 of 2015
Decided on: 10.01.2017
The Director HIMURJA ...Appellant.
of
Versus
Oasis Power Project Private Limited ...Respondents.
and another rt
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General, with Mr. Romesh Verma,
Additional Advocate General, and Mr.
J.K. Verma& Mr. Kush Sharma,
Deputy Advocate Generals, for
respondent No. 2.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:53:18 :::HCHP
2
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral)
Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and .
order, dated 2nd June, 2015, made by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 352 of 2014, titled as Oasis Power Project Private Limited versus State of H.P. and another, whereby of the writ respondents were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh (for short "the impugned judgment").
rt
2. We have gone through the writ petition read with the impugned judgment and are of the view that the impugned judgment, on the face of it, is nonspeaking one and merits to be set aside for the following reasons:
3. It appears that writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 herein is in the lis right from the year 2001. The writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 had approached this Court by the medium of CWP No. 841 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order, dated 4th May, 2011, by providing that the writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 is at liberty to file representation before the Government. The writ petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:53:18 :::HCHP 3 respondent No. 1 made a representation before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and .
Chief Executive Officer, HIMURJA, which was rejected on 12th December, 2012 (Annexure P10 in the writ petition), constraining him to file CWP No. 352 of 2014 seeking of quashment of Annexure P10 (supra).
4. It is apt to record herein that without quashing rt Annexure P10 (supra), the learned Single Judge has directed the writ respondents to consider the case of the writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 herein afresh without thrashing and marshalling out the facts and merits of the case.
5. In the given circumstances, the impugned judgment is nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary and is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. List the same before the leaned Single Judge, having the Roster, on 27th February, 2017. The learned Single Judge is requested to hear the writ petition afresh and decide the same on merits.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:53:18 :::HCHP 46. Parties are directed to cause appearance before the learned Single Judge on 27th February, 2017.
.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice
of
rt (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
January 10, 2017
( rajni )
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:53:18 :::HCHP