Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Prashanti Surya Construction ... vs State Of H.P. & Others on 11 July, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No1531 of 2018 Decided on: 11.7. 2018 .
M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Company Ltd. .... Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & others ... Respondents.
_______________________________________________________ Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1 :
For the Petitioner :Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For Respondents :Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondent State.
Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
__________________________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral) At this stage, we have not expressed any opinion with regard to maintainability of the present petition, for the reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:01:37 :::HCHP
respondents/competent authority to consider and decide letters dated 9.6.2016 (Annexure P4 ) and 10.2.2018 (Annexure P .
10) (pages 6970 and 7879, respectively).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents state that none can possibly have any objection to the same, for the reason that officers are duty bound to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law either each way.
3. No other point is urged.
4. Under these circumstances, leaving all questions of law open, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide letters dated 9.6.2016 (Annexure P4 ) and 10.2.2018 (Annexure P
10), in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months from today.
5. 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:01:37 :::HCHP6. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice ( Sandeep Sharma ) 11 July, 2018 th Judge (shankar/manjit) r to ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2018 23:01:37 :::HCHP