Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shakuntla Devi vs . State Of H.P. on 11 April, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
Shakuntla Devi Vs. State of H.P. .
CWP No. 3256 of 2020 11.04.2022 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Sunny Datwalia, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1- State.
Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. Shashi Pal Sharma, SDM Barsar-cum- Chairman, Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deothsidh, Hamirpur, is present in person.
Mr. Shashi Pal Sharma, SDM Barsar-cum-
Chairman, Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deothsidh, Hamirpur, is present in the Court alongwith record. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/Trust has drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 06.09.2021, which has been passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CMP No. 15755 of 2019, titled as Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deothsidh & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Devi in LPA No. 284 of 2012 and has submitted that in view of the withdrawal of CWP No. 823 of 2009 itself by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Division Bench, everything that followed post issuance of direction in the said writ petition is now non-est as has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its order dated 06.09.2021. He further submitted that what the petitioner is seeking directly or indirectly is the implementation of the judgment which was passed in CWP No. 823 of 2009, which now stands withdrawn and that is not permissible in law.
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2022 20:11:06 :::CISLearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted .
that withdrawal of the writ petition is a matter of record and the petitioner as of now is not praying for any relief which is emanating from the judgment which was so passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in CWP No. 823 of 2009. His contention is that the petitioner is praying for implementation of the decision which was otherwise independently taken by the said respondent, as is evident from Annexure-P-4 and P-5. He further submitted that in the light of what has been submitted before the Court today, it will be in the interest of justice in case the matter is ordered to be taken up for consideration on merit. Ordered accordingly.
As prayed for, list for hearing after four weeks.
Officer need not to remain present in the Court unless expressly directed by the Court.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 11, 2022 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2022 20:11:06 :::CIS