Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Balinder Singh vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 4 May, 2017

Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                                        .
                                             CWP No. 1408 of 2016





                                      Date of decision: May 04, 2017.





    Sh. Balinder Singh.                                              ......Petitioner.

                                      Versus
    State of H.P. & ors.                                              ......Respondents.



    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

    For the petitioner                :      Mr.   Shyam             Singh        Chauhan,
                                             Advocate.


    For the respondents               :      Mr. Pramod Thakur, Additional
                                             Advocate General.




    Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the grant in aid w.e.f. 2nd December 2008 to 7.9.2009 along with interest and with all consequential benefits."

2. On the previous date following order came to be passed in this writ petition:

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2017 23:56:29 :::HCHP 2

"Despite opportunities afforded, response not filed. Be positively filed within a period of four weeks, .

failing which it shall be presumed that response is not required to be filed and petition shall be heard on the basis of material available on record. Rejoinder, if any, be also filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

List on 24.04.2017 before the Deputy/Additional Registrar (Judicial), before whom, learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear/cause appearance for compliance of the order. Thereafter, matter be listed before the Court on 04.05.2017."

3. Irrespective of the order ibid the respondents have failed to file response to the writ petition. It can reasonably be believed that they have nothing to say in the matter. Otherwise also, the facts of this case are identical to that in CWP No. 2281 of 2014, titled Tapender Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which stands disposed of vide judgment dated 27.5.2016. The point in issue, as such, is squarely covered by the judgment supra in favour of the petitioner in this case.

4. Therefore, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 2 to treat this writ petition as representation and decide the same within three weeks from today in the light of the given facts and circumstances and also the judgment of this Court in Tapender Singh's case supra. The opportunity of being heard be also provided to the petitioner before a conscious decision in the ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2017 23:56:29 :::HCHP 3 matter is taken by the said respondent. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again if still feel .

aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision to be taken in the matter by second respondent.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

    May 04, 2017,
          (vs)
                  r           to      (Dharam Chand Chaudhary),
                                                 Judge.









                                           ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2017 23:56:29 :::HCHP