Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jitender Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 16 November, 2015
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No.4259 of 2015
Date of decision: 16.11.2015
Jitender Singh & others ..Petitioners
.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
of
For the petitioners: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with
Mr.Anup Rattan and Mr.Romesh Verma,
rt Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. J.K.
Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the State
of Himachal Pradesh.
Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Advocate, for the
State of Rajasthan.
________________________________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)
[ Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, lead case of which is CWP No.1540 of 2013, titled Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 6th November, 2013 and prayed that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). Their statements are taken on record.
2. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above, at pages 25 and 26, herein:-
"2. It is not in dispute that after the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Another versus Union of India & Others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 749, a high power committee has been constituted to look into the grievance of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:20:27 :::HCHP 2 petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional.
Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and .
similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representation(s). The committee shall also be guided by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.492 of 2007, titled as "Ashwani Kumar V. Union of India", decided on 29.3.2011, against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.1.2013.
of It is made clear that the limitation/delay shall not come in the way of the petitioner(s). It is also made clear that the high power committee shall decide the cases individually and pass rt speaking/detailed order(s), strictly as per the averments made in the representation(s). It is further clarified that if the land is available in Sriganganagar (reserved area), this aspect shall also be taken into consideration. The respondent- State is also directed to issue the eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioners in CWPs No. 11070 of 2011-G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee."
3. It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C) No.21904 of 2012, titled State of Rajasthan & another vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & others, decided on 2nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the writ ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:20:27 :::HCHP 3 petitioners to file representation(s) within eight weeks before the High Power Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.
.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
of
Chief Justice
November 16, 2015 ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
(cm/vt) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:20:27 :::HCHP