Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kuldip Chand Sharma vs The State Of Hp And Others on 24 April, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 635 of 2018.
Date of decision: 24th April, 2018.
Kuldip Chand Sharma .......Petitioner.
.
Versus The State of HP and others ......Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ranjan Sharma, and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals.
Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
r Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
_________________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) Writ petitioner, by way of representation, shall immediately approach the respondents authorities and more particularly Town and Country Planning Officer, Dharamshala (respondent No.5), pointing out ;
(a) That the construction raised by him is totally authorized and within the permissible limits;
(b) The same has never ever been put to commercial use; and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2018 22:51:53 :::HCHP -2-
(c) In future also, it shall never ever be put to commercial use, save and except, in accordance with law.
(ii) Upon receipt of the said representation, the said .
authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks thereof.
(iii) Needless to add, an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to all concerned.
2. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and leave it for the Committee to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law.
3. Liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to independently assail the order passed by the authority, if so, required and desired subsequently.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol ) Acting Chief Justice.
April 24, 2018. (Ajay Mohan Goel) (cm Thakur) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2018 22:51:53 :::HCHP