Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chet Ram And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 8 July, 2019
Bench: V .Ramasubramanian, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 335 of 2018
.
Decided on: 08.07.2019
Chet Ram and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Nishi Goel and Mr. Harsh
Kalta, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional
Advocate General, with M/s. J.K.
Verma, Ritta Goswami, Adarsh K.
Sharma, Ashwani K. Sharma and
Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocates General.
V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice. (Oral)
Challenging a Notification seeking to locate the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) at Janjehli, the Gram Panchayat Thunag came up with a writ petition in CWP No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:27:43 :::HCHP 21272 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12 th July, 2016 on the ground that it was premature and that .
Government was yet to take a decision.
2. After the Government took a decision, the Gram Panchayat filed another writ petition in CWP No. 2135 of 2016, assailing a Notification issued in that regard on 27 th June, 2016 creating a new Sub Division at Janjehli. The said writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court on 4 th January, 2018.
3. Seeking a review of the said order, the third party, by name Chet Ram alongwith another, filed a petition in Civil Review No. 7 of 2018. The said petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 17th July, 2018.
4. Challenging the order passed in the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat and the Review Petition filed by him, the said Chet Ram filed SLP (C) Diary No. 35522 of 2018 on the file of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition by an order dated 29 th October, 2018. But while doing so, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the petitioner has already moved another ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:27:43 :::HCHP 3 writ petition in CWP No. 335 of 2018, challenging a consequential Notification issued after the writ petition of the .
Gram Panchayat was allowed. The Supreme Court allowed liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in CWP No. 335 of 2018 and it is this writ petition that we have now taken up.
5. Virtually, the challenge in this writ petition is to the location of the office of the Sub Divisional Officer. But the issue as to whether it can be located at a particular place or not, has attained finality in the decision rendered in favour of the Gram Panchayat in CWP No. 2135 of 2016. As a matter of fact, all the contentions now raised in the present writ petition, were raised by the very same petitioner in his application for review in CR No. 7 of 2018. In the Review Application, the very same Notifications impugned in this writ petition are also referred to. This is due to the fact that the impugned Notifications were only consequential to the judgment of this Court. Therefore, the present writ petition, is only a second application, under the garb of a fresh writ petition, seeking a review of the very same order. Hence, it is ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:27:43 :::HCHP 4 devoid of merits. Therefore, it is dismissed alongwith the pending applications, if any.
.
(V. Ramasubramanian) Chief Justice (Anoop Chitkara) Judge July 08, 2019 ( rajni ) r to ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:27:43 :::HCHP