Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rashpal Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 2 August, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No.1753 of 2018
Date of decision : 02.08.2018
Rashpal Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Devinder K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Addl. A.G., Ms. Rita Goswami & Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for the Union of India.
Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate for the State of Rajasthan.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources Government of India, Sharam Shakti 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP
...2...
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, is impleaded as party .
respondent No.5. Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections in the Memo of parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner state 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 pray that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). His statement is taken on record.
3. 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.
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP...3...
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 rin 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 2011G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee."
4. It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP ...4...
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.
5. In the given circumstances, as mutually 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 petitioner 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. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP...5...
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .
alongwith all pending applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma), August 02, 2018. Judge.
(cm Thakur) ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 22:59:02 :::HCHP