Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Chand vs State Of H.P. & Others on 6 January, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP Nos. 39, 57, 58, 59, 60, 74
and 75 of 2016
Date of decision: 06.01.2016
.
1. CWP No.39 of 2016
Karam Chand ..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
2. CWP No.57 of 2016
Teja Singh ..Petitioner
of
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
3. CWP No.58 of 2016
rt
Roop Lal ..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
4. CWP No.59 of 2016
Kashmir Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
5. CWP No.60 of 2016
Malkit Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
6. CWP No.74 of 2016
Bidhi Chand ..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
7. CWP No.75 of 2016
Sunita Gulari ..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ..Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sat Parkash, Proxy Counsel.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:40:24 :::HCHP
2
For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with
Mr.Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma,
Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. J.K.
Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the State
of Himachal Pradesh.
Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Advocate, for the
.
State of Rajasthan
________________________________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)
[ Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, of lead case of which is CWP No.1540 of 2013, titled Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 6th November, 2013 and prayed that rt these writ petitions be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra).
Their statements are taken on record.
2. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above, at pages 25 and 26, herein:-
"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.
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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:40:24 :::HCHP 3 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, of was also followed by the Division Bench of this 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 rt Sharma & others, decided on 2nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the writ petitioner(s) to file representation(s) within eight weeks before the High Power Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.
5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
Chief Justice
January 6, 2016 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(hemlata/vt) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:40:24 :::HCHP