Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rameshwari Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others on 10 October, 2023
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2820 of 2019
Decided on : 10.10.2023
.
Smt. Rameshwari Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sumit Sharma,
rt Advocate.
For the respondents : M/s Rupinder Singh Thakur and
Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General with M/s
Ranjna Patial and Sumit
Sharma, Deputy Advocate
Generals for respondents-State.
: Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) that in view of the submission made hereinabove in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2019, passed by the Sub Divisional 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:35:01 :::CIS 2
Collector, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of .
justice and fair play.
ii) That the Sub Divisional Collector, Ghumarwin may kindly be directed to send back the record of AC 1st Grade, Ghumarwin and only call for the of same after admission of the main appeal if need so arise because prior to admission of the main rt appeal, he is required to decide the application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal."
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, after referring to various orders passed by the Quasi Judicial Authority, has drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 27th September, 2019 (Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No. 5 and submitted that this order has been passed by the Quasi Judicial Authority without appreciating that a single appeal filed against three orders, two of which were beyond the period of limitation, was nothing but an abuse of the process of law by the private respondents. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without adjudicating upon the issue of maintainability of the appeal filed, the Quasi Judicial Authority has ventured to adjudicate the lis on merit which is ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:35:01 :::CIS 3 not permissible in law because until and unless the issue of maintainability is decided first, the Quasi Judicial Authority .
should not venture to adjudicate the same on merit.
Accordingly, he has prayed that as the order, on the face of it, is perverse, the petition be allowed and the order in issue be quashed and set aside.
of
3. Mr. Malay Kaushal, learned Counsel for the private respondents, has submitted that all the issues which rt have been argued by the petitioner before this Court, have not been raised by the petitioner before the Authority and the appeal which has been preferred by the respondent before the Authority below is (a) within the period of limitation as far as order dated 27th September, 2019 is concerned; and (b) qua other orders, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay, has already been filed.
4. Be that as it may, having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the appeal filed by the private respondent is still pending adjudication before respondent No. 5, without making any observation vis-à-vis the respective contentions raised by the parties before this Court, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the appeal shall be decided by respondent No. 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:35:01 :::CIS 4 on or before 15th of December of 2023, in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. The issue .
of maintainability of the appeal shall also be gone into by the Authority.
5. Parties through their respective Counsel are directed to appear before respondent No. 5 on 17th October, of 2023 and apprise the Authority of the order passed by the Court and thereafter, a date shall be fixed by the Authority for rt hearing of the appeal.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merit of the case and the same shall be decided by the Authority below without being influenced of the observations made by this Court while deciding this petition.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
October 10, 2023 Judge
(narender)
::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:35:01 :::CIS