Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Asha Rani Alias Nirmla Devi And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 23 May, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1071 of 2018 Decided on: May 23, 2018 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Asha Rani alias Nirmla Devi and another ................Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioners Mr. Malkeeyat Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, AG with Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. AAG, Mr. JK Verma, Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, AAG's, for respondents No. 2 and 3/State of Himachal Pradesh.
Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Yash W. Chauhan, Advocate, for the State of Rajasthan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral):
Learned counsel for the petitioners states 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 prays that the instant writ petition be disposed of
----------------------------------------------------------------------1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:54:18 :::HCHP 2
in terms of the judgment (supra). His statement is taken on record.
.
2. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above:-
"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 petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional. r 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. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:54:18 :::HCHP 3 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, as prayed for, 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 petitioners to file representation within eight weeks before the High Power Committee. As agreed, the said Committee shall decide the same within three months thereafter. Needless to add, such decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, if so required or desired. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 23, 2018 (vikrant/shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:54:18 :::HCHP