Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Tikka Ram vs Union Of India & Others on 18 May, 2018

Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1114 of 2018 .

                                           Decided on: 18.05.2018





    Tikka Ram                                               ...Petitioner.





                                  Versus
    Union of India & 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?

For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.Rajesh Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No.1.

Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr.Ranjan Sharma, Mr.Adarsh K. Sharma, Mr.Nand Lal Thakur and Ms.Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate Generals , for respondents No.2, 4 and 5.

Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be content, if he is allowed to represent his case to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the above request.

2. No other point is urged.

3. Leaving the questions of law open, a direction is issued to the respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's .

representation, in accordance with law, by affording due opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof. Petitioner is at liberty to place additional material on record, if any. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. However, it is clarified that we do not express any opinion on the merits of the case, including the question of delay and laches, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. Also, pendency of the representation shall not come in the way of the National Highway Authority of India from executing the work.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

( Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice ( Ajay Mohan Goel ) Judge May 18, 2018 ( vt ) ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2018 18:53:19 :::HCHP